Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities

Transcription

1 Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington DC NUREG-2115 U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC Report # DOE/NE-0140 Electric Power Research Institute 3420 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, CA Report #

2

3 AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS IN NRC PUBLICATIONS NRC Reference Material As of November 1999, you may electronically access NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at NRC=s Public Electronic Reading Room at Publicly released records include, to name a few, NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins and information notices; inspection and investigative reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers and their attachments. NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC regulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one of these two sources. 1. The Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Mail Stop SSOP Washington, DC 20402B0001 Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Telephone: Fax: The National Technical Information Service Springfield, VA 22161B B800B553B6847 or, locally, 703B605B6000 A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request as follows: Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration Publications Branch Washington, DC DISTRIBUTION.SERVICES@NRC.GOV Facsimile: 301B415B2289 Some publications in the NUREG series that are posted at NRC=s Web site address are updated periodically and may differ from the last printed version. Although references to material found on a Web site bear the date the material was accessed, the material available on the date cited may subsequently be removed from the site. Non-NRC Reference Material Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports. Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-nrc conference proceedings may be purchased from their sponsoring organization. Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained atc The NRC Technical Library Two White Flint North Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852B2738 These standards are available in the library for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, fromc American National Standards Institute 11 West 42 nd Street New York, NY 10036B B642B4900 Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical specifications; or orders, not in NUREG-series publications. The views expressed in contractor-prepared publications in this series are not necessarily those of the NRC. The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and administrative reports and books prepared by the staff (NUREGBXXXX) or agency contractors (NUREG/CRBXXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences (NUREG/CPBXXXX), (3) reports resulting from international agreements (NUREG/IABXXXX), (4) brochures (NUREG/BRBXXXX), and (5) compilations of legal decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors= decisions under Section of NRC=s regulations (NUREGB0750).

4

5 Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities Cosponsors U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC R. H. Lagdon, Jr. Chief of Nuclear Safety Office of the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, S-5 M.E. Shields Project Manager Office of Nuclear Energy, NE-72 Electric Power Research Institute 3420 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, CA J. F. Hamel Program Manager Advanced Nuclear Technology U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Washington DC R.G. Roche-Rivera NRC Project Manager This document was not developed under a 10CFR50 Appendix B program.

6 DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES EPRI DISCLAIMER THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM: (A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR (B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT. DOE DISCLAIMER THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED BY AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. NEITHER THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT NOR ANY AGENCY THEREOF, NOR ANY OF THEIR EMPLOYEES, MAKES ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OR ASSUMES ANY LEGAL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, OR USEFULNESS OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, PRODUCT, OR PROCESS DISCLOSED, OR REPRESENTS THAT ITS USE WOULD NOT INFRINGE PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS. REFERENCE HEREIN TO ANY SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL PRODUCT, PROCESS, OR SERVICE BY TRADE NAME, TRADEMARK, MANUFACTURER, OR OTHERWISE DOES NOT NECESSARILY CONSTITUTE OR IMPLY ITS ENDORSEMENT, RECOMMENDATION, OR FAVORING BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF. THE VIEWS AND OPINIONS OF AUTHORS EXPRESSED HEREIN DO NOT NECESSARILY STATE OR REFLECT THOSE OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF. NRC DISCLAIMER THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED BY AN AGENCY OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. NEITHER THE U.S. GOVERNMENT NOR ANY AGENCY THEREOF, NOR ANY EMPLOYEE, MAKES ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, OR ASSUMES ANY LEGAL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY THIRD PARTY S USE, OR THE RESULTS OF SUCH USE, OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, PRODUCT, OR PROCESS DISCLOSED IN THIS PUBLICATION, OR REPRESENTS THAT ITS USE BY SUCH THIRD PARTY WOULD NOT INFRINGE PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS. THE STATEMENTS, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR(S) AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEW OF THE US NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION..

7 SPONSORS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The project sponsors would like to acknowledge the following individuals for directing the project: Coppersmith Consulting, Inc N. California Blvd., #290 Walnut Creek, CA Technical Integration (TI) Lead K.J. Coppersmith Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC Savannah River Site Building 730-4B, Room 313 Aiken, SC CEUS SSC Project Manager L.A. Salomone This document describes research sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE) under Award Number DE-FG07-08ID14908, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S. NRC) under Award Number NCR This publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner: Technical Report: Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, U.S. DOE, and U.S. NRC: iii

8

9 AUTHORS This document was prepared by the following investigators: Technical Integration Lead Project Manager Technical Integration Team Database Manager Technical Support Kevin J. Coppersmith Lawrence A. Salomone Chris W. Fuller Laura L. Glaser Kathryn L. Hanson Ross D. Hartleb William R. Lettis Scott C. Lindvall Stephen M. McDuffie Robin K. McGuire Gerry L. Stirewalt Gabriel R. Toro Robert R. Youngs David L. Slayter Serkan B. Bozkurt Randolph J. Cumbest Valentina Montaldo Falero Roseanne C. Perman Allison M. Shumway Frank H. Syms Martitia (Tish) P. Tuttle, Paleoliquefaction Data Resource v

10

11 NUREG-2115 DOE/NE-0140 EPRI This document has been reproduced from the best available copy. vii

12

13 ABSTRACT This report describes a new seismic source characterization (SSC) model for the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS). It will replace the Seismic Hazard Methodology for the Central and Eastern United States, EPRI Report NP-4726 (July 1986) and the Seismic Hazard Characterization of 69 Nuclear Plant Sites East of the Rocky Mountains, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Model, (Bernreuter et al., 1989). The objective of the CEUS SSC Project is to develop a new seismic source model for the CEUS using a Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) Level 3 assessment process. The goal of the SSHAC process is to represent the center, body, and range of technically defensible interpretations of the available data, models, and methods. Input to a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) consists of both seismic source characterization and ground motion characterization. These two components are used to calculate probabilistic hazard results (or seismic hazard curves) at a particular site. This report provides a new seismic source model. Results and Findings The product of this report is a regional CEUS SSC model. This model includes consideration of an updated database, full assessment and incorporation of uncertainties, and the range of diverse technical interpretations from the larger technical community. The SSC model will be widely applicable to the entire CEUS, so this project uses a ground motion model that includes generic variations to allow for a range of representative site conditions (deep soil, shallow soil, hard rock). Hazard and sensitivity calculations were conducted at seven test sites representative of different CEUS hazard environments. Challenges and Objectives The regional CEUS SSC model will be of value to readers who are involved in PSHA work, and who wish to use an updated SSC model. This model is based on a comprehensive and traceable process, in accordance with SSHAC guidelines in NUREG/CR-6372, Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis: Guidance on Uncertainty and Use of Experts. The model will be used to assess the present-day composite distribution for seismic sources along with their characterization in the CEUS and uncertainty. In addition, this model is in a form suitable for use in PSHA evaluations for regulatory activities, such as Early Site Permit (ESPs) and Combined Operating License Applications (COLAs). Applications, Values, and Use Development of a regional CEUS seismic source model will provide value to those who (1) have submitted an ESP or COLA for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review before 2011; (2) will submit an ESP or COLA for NRC review after 2011; (3) must respond to safety issues resulting from NRC Generic Issue 199 (GI-199) for existing plants and (4) will prepare PSHAs to meet design and periodic review requirements for current and future nuclear facilities. This work replaces a previous study performed approximately 25 years ago. Since that study was ix

14 completed, substantial work has been done to improve the understanding of seismic sources and their characterization in the CEUS. Thus, a new regional SSC model provides a consistent, stable basis for computing PSHA for a future time span. Use of a new SSC model reduces the risk of delays in new plant licensing due to more conservative interpretations in the existing and future literature. Perspective The purpose of this study, jointly sponsored by EPRI, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the NRC was to develop a new CEUS SSC model. The team assembled to accomplish this purpose was composed of distinguished subject matter experts from industry, government, and academia. The resulting model is unique, and because this project has solicited input from the present-day larger technical community, it is not likely that there will be a need for significant revision for a number of years. See also Sponsors Perspective for more details. Approach The goal of this project was to implement the CEUS SSC work plan for developing a regional CEUS SSC model. The work plan, formulated by the project manager and a technical integration team, consists of a series of tasks designed to meet the project objectives. This report was reviewed by a participatory peer review panel (PPRP), sponsor reviewers, the NRC, the U.S. Geological Survey, and other stakeholders. Comments from the PPRP and other reviewers were considered when preparing the report. The SSC model was completed at the end of Keywords Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) Seismic source characterization (SSC) Seismic source characterization model Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) x

15 CONTENTS Abstract... ix Contents... xi List of Figures... xxv List of Tables... lxxvii Executive Summary... lxxxv Participatory Peer Review Panel Final Report Dated October 24, xcv Project Acknowledgements... ciii Sponsor s Perspective... cv Abbreviations... cix 1 INTRODUCTION Background and History EPRI-SOG and LLNL Projects Development of the SSHAC Process Implementation of the SSHAC Methodology Regional SSC Model for Nuclear Facilities Differences from USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project Purpose of the CEUS SSC Project Implementation of SSHAC Level 3 Process Goals: Stability and Longevity Interface with Ground Motion Models Study Region Products of Project Seismic Source Model for Study Region Hazard Input Document Documentation of Technical Bases for All Assessments Other Key Products Data Evaluation and Data Summary Tables xi

16 xii Database of Geologic, Geophysical, and Seismological Data Earthquake Catalog with Uniform Moment Magnitudes Updated Paleoseismicity Data and Guidance Recommendations for Future Applications of SSC Model SSHAC LEVEL 3 ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND IMPLEMENTATION Goals and Activities of a SSHAC Assessment Process Evaluation Integration Roles of CEUS SSC Project Participants CEUS SSC Project Organization Key Tasks and Activities Database Development Identification of Significant Issues Workshop #1 Key Issues and Available Data Workshop #2 Alternative Interpretations Working Meetings SSC Sensitivity Model Development Workshop #3 Feedback SSC Preliminary Model Development Finalization and Review of SSC Draft and Final Model Documentation Development of the Hazard Input Document Development of Earlier Draft Report Draft Report Review Final Report Development Participatory Peer Review Panel Roles and Responsibilities Reviews and Feedback Fulfillment of SSHAC-Prescribed Scope of Review of Both Technical and Process Issues Consistency of CEUS SSC Assessment Process with SSHAC Guidelines EARTHQUAKE CATALOG Goals for the Earthquake Catalog Development Completeness

17 3.1.2 Uniformity of Catalog Processing Catalog Review Catalog Compilation Continental-Scale Catalogs Regional Catalogs Catalogs from Special Studies Focal Depth Data Nontectonic Events Identification of Unique Earthquake Entries Development of a Uniform Moment Magnitude Earthquake Catalog Approach for Uniform Magnitude and Unbiased Recurrence Estimation Estimation of E[M] for the CEUS SSC Project Catalog Effect of Magnitude Rounding on Statistical Tests Moment Magnitude Data Estimation of E[M] from Body-Wave Magnitudes Estimation of E[M] from M L Magnitudes Estimation of E[M] from M S Magnitudes Estimation of E[M] from M C and M D Magnitudes Estimation of E[M] from the Logarithm of Felt Area Estimation of E[M] from the Maximum Intensity, I Uniform Moment Magnitude Catalog of E[M] and N* Values Identification of Independent Earthquakes Catalog Completeness CONCEPTUAL SEISMIC SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION FRAMEWORK Needs for a Conceptual SSC Framework Logic Tree Approach to Representing Alternatives and Assessing Uncertainties Examples of Logic Trees Assigning Weights to Logic Tree Branches Data Identification and Evaluation Generic Data Identification to Address Indicators of a Seismic Source Data Evaluation for Particular Seismic Sources: Data Evaluation and Data Summary Tables Methodology for Identifying Seismic Sources xiii

18 Hazard-Informed Approach Conclusions Regarding the Hazard Significance of Various SSC Issues Criteria for Defining Seismic Sources Master Logic Tree Description of Logic Tree Elements RLME Source Logic Tree Mmax Zones Logic Tree Seismotectonic Zones Branch SSC MODEL: OVERVIEW AND METHODOLOGY Overview of Spatial and Temporal Models Spatial Model Considerations Considerations Regarding Temporal Models Perspective on CEUS SSC Models Maximum Earthquake Magnitude Assessment Approaches to Mmax Estimation in the CEUS Bayesian Mmax Approach Kijko Approach to Mmax Assessment Weights for the Alternative Mmax Approaches Example Mmax Distributions Other Mmax Issues Earthquake Recurrence Assessment Smoothing to Represent Spatial Stationarity Smoothing Approach Development of Penalized-Likelihood Approach and Formulation Application of the Model and Specification of Model Parameters Exploration of Model Results in Parameter Space Consideration of Constant b-value Kernel Approaches Comparison to EPRI-SOG Approach Assessment of the Lombardi Study Estimation of Recurrence for RLME Sources Estimation of Occurrence Rates for the Poisson Model Estimation of Occurrence Rates for a Renewal Model Incorporating Uncertainty in the Input RLME Magnitude Distribution xiv

19 5.4 Assessment of Future Earthquake Characteristics Tectonic Stress Regime Sense of Slip/Style of Faulting Strike and Dip of Ruptures Seismogenic Crustal Thickness Fault Rupture Area Rupture Length-to-Width Aspect Ratio Relationship of Rupture to Source Zone Boundaries Predicted Seismic Moment Rate SSC MODEL: RLME SOURCES AND MMAX ZONES BRANCH RLME Sources Charlevoix Evidence for Temporal Clustering Localizing Tectonic Features Geometry and Style of Faulting RLME Magnitude RLME Recurrence Charleston Evidence for Temporal Clustering Localizing Feature Geometry and Style of Faulting RLME Magnitude RLME Recurrence Cheraw Fault Evidence for Temporal Clustering Geometry and Style of Faulting RLME Magnitude RLME Recurrence Meers Fault Evidence for Temporal Clustering Localizing Feature Geometry and Style of Faulting RLME Magnitude RLME Recurrence xv

20 6.1.5 Reelfoot Rift New Madrid Fault System Evidence for Temporal Clustering Geometry and Style of Faulting RLME Magnitude RLME Recurrence Reelfoot Rift Eastern Rift Margin Fault Evidence for Temporal Clustering Geometry and Style of Faulting RLME Magnitude RLME Recurrence Reelfoot Rift Marianna Evidence for Temporal Clustering Geometry and Style of Faulting RLME Magnitude RLME Recurrence Reelfoot Rift Commerce Fault Zone Evidence for Temporal Clustering Geometry and Style of Faulting RLME Magnitude RLME Recurrence Wabash Valley Evidence for Temporal Clustering Geometry and Style of Faulting RLME Magnitude RLME Recurrence Mmax Distributed Seismicity Source Zones Definition of Mmax Zones Criteria for Defining the MESE/NMESE Boundary Maximum Magnitude Distributions for Mmax Distributed Seismicity Sources Maximum Observed Earthquake Magnitude Mmax Distributions Recurrence Parameters Rate and b-value Maps for Single Zone and Two Zones Comparison of Recurrence Parameters to Catalog xvi

21 7 SSC MODEL: SEISMOTECTONIC ZONES BRANCH Approaches and Data Used to Define Seismotectonic Zones RLME Sources in the Seismotectonic Zones Branch Seismotectonic Source Zones St. Lawrence Rift Zone (SLR) Background Basis for Defining Seismotectonic Zone Basis for Zone Geometry Basis for Zone Mmax Future Earthquake Characteristics Great Meteor Hotspot Zone (GMH) Background Basis for Defining Seismotectonic Zone Basis for Zone Geometry Basis for Zone Mmax Future Earthquake Characteristics Northern Appalachian Zone (NAP) Background Basis for Defining Seismotectonic Zone Basis for Zone Geometry Basis for Zone Mmax Future Earthquake Characteristics Paleozoic Extended Crust (PEZ) Background Basis for Defining Seismotectonic Zone Basis for Zone Geometry Basis for Zone Mmax Future Earthquake Characteristics Ilinois Basin Extended Basement Zone (IBEB) Background Basis for Defining Seismotectonic Zone Basis for Zone Geometry Basis for Zone Mmax Future Earthquake Characteristics Reelfoot Rift Zone (RR) xvii

22 Background Basis for Defining Seismotectonic Zone Basis for Zone Geometry Basis for Zone Mmax Future Earthquake Characteristics Extended Continental Crust Atlantic Margin Zone (ECC-AM) Background Basis for Defining Seismotectonic Zone Basis for Geometry Basis for Mmax Future Earthquake Characteristics Atlantic Highly Extended Crust Zone (AHEX) Basis for Defining Seismotectonic Zone Basis for Geometry Basis for Mmax Future Earthquake Characteristics Extended Continental Crust Gulf Coast Zone (ECC-GC) Basis for Defining Seismotectonic Zone Basis for Zone Geometry Basis for Zone Mmax Future Earthquake Characteristics Possible Paleoliquefaction Features in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi Gulf Coast Highly Extended Crust Zone (GHEX) Basis for Defining Seismotectonic Zone Basis for Zone Geometry Basis for Zone Mmax Future Earthquake Characteristics Oklahoma Aulacogen Zone (OKA) Basis for Defining Seismotectonic Zone Basis for Zone Geometry Basis for Zone Mmax Future Earthquake Characteristics Midcontinent-Craton Zone (MidC) Background xviii

23 Basis for Defining Seismotectonic Zone Basis for Zone Geometry Basis for Zone Mmax Future Earthquake Characteristics Maximum Magnitude Distributions for Seismotectonic Distributed Seismicity Sources Maximum Observed Earthquake Magnitude Mmax Distributions Recurrence Parameters Rate and b-value Maps for Single Zone and Two Zones Comparison of Recurrence Parameters to Catalog DEMONSTRATION HAZARD CALCULATIONS Background on Demonstration Hazard Calculations Demonstration Hazard Calculations Central Illinois Site Chattanooga Site Houston Site Jackson Site Manchester Site Savannah Site Topeka Site USE OF THE CEUS SSC MODEL IN PSHA Overview Hazard Input Document (HID) Implementation Instructions Simplifications to Seismic Sources Charleston RLME Charlevoix RLME Cheraw RLME Commerce Fault Zone RLME Eastern Rift Margin North RLME Eastern Rift Margin South RLME Marianna RLME Meers RLME xix

24 New Madrid Fault System RLME Wabash Valley RLME Background Sources Accessing the SSC Model and Components from the Website Accessing Project Databases Use of SSC Model with Site-Specific Refinements Hazard Significance Data Available to Evaluate the Precision of Seismic Hazard Estimates Observed Imprecision in Seismic Hazard Estimates Area Seismic Sources RLME Seismic Sources Ground Motion Equations Site Response Conclusions on the Precision in Seismic Hazard Estimates REFERENCES GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS A DESCRIPTION OF THE CEUS SSC PROJECT DATABASE... A-1 A.1 Data Sources... A-2 A.2 Project Database Design and Management... A-3 A.3 Workflow and Data Assessment... A-3 A.3.1 Workflow... A-3 A.3.2 Digital Data... A-4 A.3.3 Nondigital Data... A-4 A.4 Use of Project Database in Model Development... A-5 A.5 Metadata... A-5 A.6 Database Delivery Format... A-6 B EARTHQUAKE CATALOG DATABASE... B-1 B.1 CEUS SSC Uniform Moment Magnitude Earthquake Catalog... B-1 B.2 Moment Magnitude Data... B-2 B.3 Approximate Moment Magnitude Data... B-3 B.4 CEUS SSC Project Data... B-3 xx

25 C DATA EVALUATION TABLES... C-1 Introduction... C-2 D DATA SUMMARY TABLES... D-1 Introduction... D-2 E CEUS PALEOLIQUEFACTION DATABASE, UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH PALEOLIQUEFACTION DATA, AND GUIDANCE FOR SEISMIC SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION... E- E.1 Development of the Paleoliquefaction Database... E-1 E.1.1 Database Structure... E-1 E.1.2 Regional Data Sets... E-4 E.2 Uncertainties Associated with Paleoliquefaction Data... E-24 E.2.1 Collection of Paleoliquefaction Data... E-24 E.2.2 Uncertainties Related to Interpretation of Paleoliquefaction Data... E-35 E.2.3 Recommendations for Future Research... E-43 E.3 Guidance for the Use of Paleoliquefaction Data in Seismic Source Characterization... E-44 E.4 Glossary... E-46 E.5 References... E-49 E.5.1 References Cited in Paleoliquefaction Database... E-49 E.5.2 References Cited in Appendix E... E-54 F WORKSHOP SUMMARIES... F-1 WORKSHOP 1: KEY ISSUES AND AVAILABLE DATA DAY 1 TUESDAY, JULY 22, F-1 DAY 2 WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, F-10 REFERENCES... F-17 WORKSHOP 2: ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS DAY 1 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, F18 DAY 2 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, F-24 DAY 3 FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, F-29 REFERENCES... F-34 WORKSHOP 3: FEEDBACK DAY 1 TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, F-42 DAY 2 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 26, F-49 xxi

26 G BIOGRAPHIES OF PROJECT TEAM... G-1 EPRI MANAGEMENT... G-2 PROJECT MANAGER... G-2 TI TEAM... G-3 TECHNICAL SUPPORT... G-7 DATABASE MANAGER... G-9 PARTICIPATORY PEER REVIEW PANEL... G-9 SPONSOR REVIEWERS... G-14 H CEUS SSC MODEL HAZARD INPUT DOCUMENT (HID)... H-1 H.1 Introduction... H-1 H.2 Seismic Source Model Structure and Master Logic Tree... H-1 H.3 Mmax Zones Distributed Seismicity Sources... H-2 H.3.1 Division of Study Region... H-2 H.3.2 Location of Boundary of Mesozoic Extension... H-2 H.3.3 Magnitude Interval Weights for Fitting Earthquake Occurrence Parameters... H-2 H.3.4 Mmax Zones... H-2 H.3.5 Seismogenic Crustal Thickness... H-2 H.3.6 Future Earthquake Rupture Characteristics... H-3 H.3.7 Assessment of Seismicity Rates... H-3 H.3.8 Degree of Smoothing Applied in Defining Spatial Smoothing of Seismicity Rates... H-3 H.3.9 Uncertainty in Earthquake Recurrence Rates... H-3 H.3.10 Uncertainty in Maximum Magnitude... H-4 H.4 Seismotectonic Zones... H-4 H.4.1 Alternative Zonation Models... H-4 H.4.2 Magnitude Interval Weights for Fitting Earthquake Occurrence Parameters... H-4 H.4.3 Seismotectonic Zones... H-5 H.4.4 Seismogenic Crustal Thickness... H-5 H.4.5 Future Earthquake Rupture Characteristics... H-5 H.4.6 Assessment of Seismicity Rates... H-5 H.4.7 Degree of Smoothing Applied in Defining Spatial Smoothing of Seismicity Rates... H-5 H.4.8 Uncertainty in Earthquake Recurrence Rates... H-5 H.4.9 Uncertainty in Maximum Magnitude... H-6 H.5 RLME Sources... H-6 xxii

27 H.5.1 Charlevoix RLME Seismic Source Model... H-6 H.5.2 Charleston RLME Seismic Source Model... H-7 H.5.3 Cheraw RLME Seismic Source Model... H-9 H.5.4 Meers RLME Seismic Source Model... H-11 H.5.5 New Madrid Fault System RLME Seismic Source Model... H-12 H.5.6 Eastern Rift Margin Fault RLME Seismic Source Model... H-14 H.5.7 Marianna Zone RLME Seismic Source Model... H-15 H.5.8 Commerce Fault RLME Seismic Source Model... H-16 H.5.9 Wabash Valley RLME Seismic Source Model... H-18 I PPRP REVIEW COMMENTS... I-1 CORRESPONDENCE CONTENTS... I-3 Participatory Peer Review Panel (PPRP) Letters... I-3 Technical Integration (TI) Team and Project Manager (PM) Response to PPRP Letters... I-4 J MAGNITUDE-RECURRENCE MAPS FOR ALL REALIZATIONS AND ALL SOURCE-ZONE CONFIGURATIONS... J-1 K SCR DATABASE USED TO DEVELOP MMAX PRIOR DISTRIBUTIONS... K-1 K.1 SCR Earthquake Catalog... K-1 K.2 SCR Crustal Domains... K-3 L QUALITY ASSURANCE... L-1 L.1 BACKGROUND... L-1 L.2 CEUS SSC PROJECT... L-2 L.2.1 Introduction... L-2 L.3 BEST BUSINESS PRACTICES... L-3 L.3.1 General... L-3 L.4 CEUS SSC EARTHQUAKE CATALOG DEVELOPMENT... L-3 L.4.1 External Review of Earthquake Catalog... L-3 L.4.2 Simulation Testing... L-4 L.4.3 Checks for Consistency in Magnitude Conversion from Intensity... L-4 L.4.4 Use of Verified Computer Programs... L-4 L.5 RECURRENCE ANALYSIS AND SPATIAL SMOOTHING... L-4 L.5.1 Introduction... L-4 L.5.2 Recurrence Comparisons at the Source-Zone Level... L-5 xxiii

28 L.5.3 Recurrence Comparisons for Portions of a Source Zone... L-5 L.5.4 Examination of Recurrence Maps... L-5 L.5.5 Test with a Synthetic Catalog Homogeneous Seismicity... L-5 L.5.6 Test for the Adequacy of Eight Maps to Represent Epistemic Uncertainty... L-6 L.6 HAZARD CALCULATION SOFTWARE... L-6 L.6.1 Introduction... L-6 L.6.2 Test for the Treatment of Variable b... L-6 L.6.3 Test for the Treatment of Dipping Ruptures Within a Source Zone... L-6 L.6.4 Tests for Treatment of Epistemic Uncertainty from Sources that Make Small Contribution to Hazard... L-6 xxiv

29 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Map showing the study area and test sites for the CEUS SSC Project Figure CEUS SSC Project organization Figure Lines of communication among the participants of the CEUS SSC Project Figure Essential activities associated with a SSHAC Level 3 or 4 project (Coppersmith et al., 2010) Figure Areal coverage of the primary earthquake catalog sources. Top: GSC catalog (Halchuk, 2009); bottom: USGS seismic hazard mapping catalog (Petersen et al., 2008). Red line denotes boundary of study region. Blue line denotes portion of each catalog used for development of project catalog Figure Histogram of M L magnitudes from the GSC SHEEF catalog for the time period and the region east of longitude 105 and south of latitude Figure Histogram of M L magnitudes from the GSC SHEEF catalog for the time period and the region east of longitude 105 and south of latitude Figure Histogram of M L magnitudes from the GSC SHEEF catalog for the time period and the region east of longitude 105 and south of latitude Figure Histogram of M L magnitudes from the GSC SHEEF catalog for the time period and the region east of longitude 105 and south of latitude Figure Histogram of M L magnitudes from the revised catalog with GSC as the source for the time period Figure Map of the CEUS SSC Project catalog showing earthquakes of uniform moment magnitude E[M] 2.9 and larger. Colored symbols denote earthquakes not contained in the USGS seismic hazard mapping catalog Figure Illustration of equivalence of the M* and 2 corrections to remove bias in earthquake recurrence relationships estimated from magnitudes with uncertainty Figure Approximate moment magnitudes from Atkinson (2004b) compared to values of M given in Table B-2 in Appendix B for earthquakes in common Figure Approximate moment magnitudes from Boatwright (1994) compared to values of M given in Table B-2 in Appendix B for earthquakes in common Figure Approximate moment magnitudes from Moulis (2002) compared to values of M given in Table B-2 in Appendix B for earthquakes in common Figure Difference between M N reported by the GSC and M N or m Lg(f) reported by the Weston Observatory catalog as a function of time Figure Spatial distribution of earthquakes with body-wave (m b, m blg, M N ) and M magnitudes in the CEUS SSC Project catalog for the Midcontinent region. Color codes indicate the source of the body-wave magnitudes Figure m b -M data for the earthquakes shown on Figure Red curve shows the preferred offset fit M = m b xxv

30 Figure Residuals from offset fit shown on Figure plotted against earthquake year Figure Spatial distribution of earthquakes with body wave (m b, m blg, M N ) and M magnitudes in the CEUS SSC Project catalog for the northeastern portion of the study region. Color codes indicate the source of the body-wave magnitudes Figure m b -M data for the earthquakes shown on Figure Red curve shows the preferred offset fit M = m b Figure Residuals from offset fit shown on Figure plotted against earthquake year Figure Residuals for GSC data from offset fit shown on Figure plotted against earthquake year Figure Residuals for WES data from offset fit shown on Figure plotted against earthquake year Figure Residuals for data from sources other than GSC or WES from offset fit shown on Figure plotted against earthquake year Figure Difference between body-wave magnitudes reported by LDO and those by other sources as a function of year Figure Spatial distribution of earthquakes with reported GSC body-wave magnitudes. Red and blue symbols indicate earthquakes with both m b and M magnitudes for m b 3.5. Dashed line indicates the portion of the study region considered the Northeast for purposes of magnitude scaling Figure M-m b as a function of time for m b data from the GSC shown on Figure Figure Plot of magnitude differences m blg m(3 Hz) for the OKO catalog Figure Final m b -M data set. Vertical dashed lines indicate the magnitude range used to develop the scaling relationship. Diagonal line indicates a one-to-one correlation Figure Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUS SSC Project catalog with instrumental M L magnitudes Figure Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUS SSC Project catalog with instrumental M L magnitudes and M magnitudes Figure M L -M data from the CEUS SSC Project catalog and robust regression fit to the data Figure Relationship between M N and M L for the GSC data Figure Data from the northeastern portion of the study region with M L and M C or M D magnitude from catalog sources other than the GSC Figure Data from the northeastern portion of the study region with M L and M magnitudes from sources other than the GSC Figure Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUS SSC Project catalog with M S 3 magnitudes Figure M S -M data from the CEUS SSC Project catalog and quadratic polynomial fit to the data Figure Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUS SSC Project catalog with M C 2.5 magnitudes xxvi

31 Figure Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUS SSC Project catalog with M C 2.5 and M magnitudes Figure Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUS SSC Project catalog with M D 3 magnitudes Figure Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUS SSC Project catalog with both M D and M magnitudes Figure M C -M data from the CEUS SSC Project catalog and linear regression fit to the data Figure Spatial distribution of earthquakes with reported M C and M D magnitudes Figure Comparison of M C and M D magnitudes for the LDO and WES catalogs Figure Comparison of M C with M D for at least one of the two magnitude types reported in the OKO catalog Figure Comparison of M C with M D for at least one of the two magnitude types reported in the CERI catalog Figure Comparison of M C with M D for at least one of the two magnitude types reported in the SCSN catalog Figure Comparison of M C with M D for at least one of the two magnitude types reported in other catalogs for earthquakes in the Midcontinent portion of the study region Figure Relationship between M and M C, M D, or M L for the Midcontinent portion of the study region Figure Comparison of M C and M D magnitudes with M L magnitudes for the region between longitudes 105 W and 100 W Figure Comparison of m b magnitudes with M L magnitudes for the region between longitudes 105 W and 100 W Figure Comparison of m b magnitudes with M C and M D magnitudes for the region between longitudes 105 W and 100 W Figure Spatial distribution of earthquake with ln(fa) in the CEUS SSC Project catalog Figure Catalog ln(fa) M data and fitted model Figure Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUS SSC Project catalog with reported values of I Figure I 0 and M data for earthquakes in the CEUS SSC Project catalog. Curves show locally weighted least-squares fit (Loess) to the data and the relationship published by Johnston (1996b) Figure I 0 and m b data from the NCEER91 catalog. Plotted are the relationships between I 0 and m b developed by EPRI (1988) (EPRI-SOG) and Sibol et al. (1987) Figure Categorical model fits of I 0 as a function and M for earthquakes in the CEUS SSC Project catalog Figure Results from proportional odds logistic model showing the probability of individual intensity classes as a function of M Figure Comparison of I 0 and m b data from the CEUS SSC Project catalog for those earthquakes with reported values of M (M set) and the full catalog (full set). Locally weighted least-squares fits to the two data sets are shown along with the xxvii

32 relationship use to develop the EPRI (1988) catalog and the Sibol et al. (1987) relationship used in the NCEER91 catalog Figure Linear fits to the data from Figure for I 0 V Figure Comparison of I 0 and m b data from the project, with m b adjusted for the difference in m b to M scaling Figure Linear fits to the data from Figure for I 0 V Figure Composite I 0 M data set used for assessment of I 0 scaling relationship Figure Linear and inverse sigmoid models fit to the project data for I 0 > IV Figure Illustration of process used to identify clusters of earthquakes (from EPRI, 1988, Vol. 1): (a) local and extended time and distance windows, (b) buffer window, and (c) contracted window Figure Identification of secondary (dependent) earthquakes inside the cluster region through Poisson thinning (from EPRI, 1988, Vol. 1) Figure Comparison of dependent event time and distance windows with results for individual clusters in the project catalog Figure Earthquake catalog and catalog completeness regions used in EPRI-SOG (EPRI, 1988) Figure CEUS SSC Project earthquake catalog and modified catalog completeness regions Figure Plot of year versus location for the CEUS SSC Project earthquake catalog. Red lines indicate the boundaries of the catalog completeness time periods Figure (1 of 7) Stepp plots of earthquake recurrence rate as a function of time for the individual catalog completeness regions shown on Figure Figure (2 of 7) Stepp plots of earthquake recurrence rate as a function of time for the individual catalog completeness regions shown on Figure Figure (3 of 7) Stepp plots of earthquake recurrence rate as a function of time for the individual catalog completeness regions shown on Figure Figure (4 of 7) Stepp plots of earthquake recurrence rate as a function of time for the individual catalog completeness regions shown on Figure Figure (5 of 7) Stepp plots of earthquake recurrence rate as a function of time for the individual catalog completeness regions shown on Figure Figure (6 of 7) Stepp plots of earthquake recurrence rate as a function of time for the individual catalog completeness regions shown on Figure Figure (7 of 7) Stepp plots of earthquake recurrence rate as a function of time for the individual catalog completeness regions shown on Figure Figure Example logic tree from the PEGASOS project (NAGRA, 2004) showing the assessment of alternative conceptual models on the logic tree. Each node of the logic tree represents an assessment that is uncertain. Alternative branches represent the alternative models or parameter values, and the weights associated with each branch reflect the TI Team s relative degree of belief that each branch is the correct model or parameter value Figure Example logic tree from the PVHA-U (SNL, 2008) project showing the treatment of alternative conceptual models in the logic tree xxviii

33 Figure Master logic tree showing the Mmax zones and seismotectonic zones alternative conceptual models for assessing the spatial and temporal characteristics of future earthquake sources in the CEUS Figure Example of a logic tree for RLME sources. Shown is the tree for the Marianna RLME source Figure Map showing RLME sources, some with alternative source geometries (discussed in Section 6.1) Figure Logic tree for the Mmax zones branch of the master logic tree Figure Subdivision used in the Mmax zones branch of the master logic tree. Either the region is considered one zone for purposes of Mmax or the region is divided into two zones as shown: a Mesozoic-and-younger extension (MESE) zone and a non-mesozoic-and-younger zone (NMESE). In this figure the narrow MESE zone is shown Figure Subdivision used in the Mmax zones branch of the master logic tree. Either the region is considered one zone for purposes of Mmax or the region is divided into two zones as shown: a Mesozoic-and-younger extension (MESE) zone and a non-mesozoic-and-younger zone (NMESE). In this figure the wide MESE zone is shown Figure (a) Logic tree for the seismotectonic zones branch of the master logic tree Figure (b) Logic tree for the seismotectonic zones branch of the master logic tree Figure Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek Graben is not part of the Reelfoot Rift (RR), and the Paleozoic Extended Zone is narrow (PEZ-N) Figure Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek Graben is part of the Reelfoot Rift (RR-RCG), and the Paleozoic Extended Zone is narrow (PEZ-N) Figure Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek Graben is not part of the Reelfoot Rift (RR), and the Paleozoic Extended Crust is wide (PEZ-W) Figure Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek Graben is part of the Reelfoot Rift (RR-RCG), and the Paleozoic Extended Crust is wide (PEZ-W) Figure Diagrammatic illustration of the Bayesian Mmax approach showing (a) the prior distribution, (b) the likelihood function, and (c) the posterior distribution. The posterior distribution is represented by a discrete distribution (d) for implementation in hazard analysis Figure Diagrammatic illustration of the Bayesian Mmax approach showing (a) the prior distribution, (b) the likelihood function, and (c) the posterior distribution. The posterior distribution is represented by a discrete distribution (d) for implementation in hazard analysis m Figure Median values of max obs as a function of maximum magnitude, m u, and sample size N, the number of earthquakes M Figure Histograms of m max obs for extended and non-extended superdomains xxix

34 Figure Histograms of max obs for Mesozoic-and-younger extended (MESE) superdomains and for older extended and non-extended (NMESE) superdomains xxx m m Figure Histograms of max obs for Mesozoic-and-younger extended (MESE) superdomains and for older extended and non-extended (NMESE) superdomains using age of most recent extension for the age classification m Figure Histograms of max obs for Mesozoic-and-younger extended (MESE) superdomains and for older extended and non-extended (NMESE) superdomains using final sets indicated by asterisks in Tables and m Figure Histograms of max obs for combined (COMB) superdomains using final sets indicated by asterisks in Table m Figure Bias adjustments from max obs to m u for the three sets of superdomain analysis results presented in Table Figure Results of simulations of estimates of Mmax using the Bayesian approach for earthquake catalogs ranging in size from 1 to 1,000 earthquakes. True Mmax is set at the mean of the prior distribution Figure Comparison of the Kijko (2004) estimates of m u for given values of m max obs and N, the number of earthquakes of magnitude 4.5. Also shown is the median value of m max obs for given m u obtained using Equation Figure Behavior of the cumulative probability function for m u (Equation ) for the K-S-B estimator and a value of m max obs equal to Figure Example Mmax distribution assessed for the Mesozoic-and-younger extended Mmax zone for the case where the zone is narrow (MESE-N). Distributions are shown for the Kijko approach and for the Bayesian approach using either the Mesozoic-and-younger extended prior distribution or the composite prior distribution. The final composite Mmax distribution, which incorporates the relative weights, is shown by the red probability distribution Figure Example Mmax distribution assessed for the Northern Appalachian seismotectonic zone (NAP). Distributions are shown for the Kijko approach and for the Bayesian approach using either the Mesozoic-and-younger extended prior distribution or the composite prior distribution. Note that the Kijko results are shown in this example for illustration, even though they have zero weight. The final composite Mmax distribution, which incorporates the relative weights, is shown by the red probability distribution Figure Likelihood function for rate per unit area in a Poisson process, for multiple values of the earthquake count N: (a) arithmetic scale, and (b) logarithmic scale used to illustrate decreasing COV as N increases Figure Likelihood function for b-value of an exponential magnitude distribution, for multiple values of the earthquake count N. The value of b is normalized by the maximum-likelihood estimate, which is derived from Equation Figure Histogram of magnitudes in the earthquake catalog used in this section. The minimum magnitude shown (M 2.9) is the lowest magnitude used in these recurrence calculations

35 Figure Objectively determined values of the penalty function for ln(rate) for Case A magnitude weights. Source zones are sorted from smallest to largest. See list of abbreviations for full source-zone names Figure Objectively determined values of the penalty function for beta for Case A magnitude weights Figure Objectively determined values of the penalty function for ln(rate) for Case B magnitude weights Figure Objectively determined values of the penalty function for beta for Case B magnitude weights. Source zones are sorted from smallest to largest Figure Objectively determined values of the penalty function for ln(rate) for Case E magnitude weights Figure Objectively determined values of the penalty function for beta for Case E magnitude weights. Source zones are sorted from smallest to largest Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for ECC-AM calculated using Case A magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for ECC-GC calculated using Case A magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for ECC-AM calculated using Case B magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for ECC-GC calculated using Case B magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for ECC-AM calculated using Case E magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for ECC-GC calculated using Case E magnitude weights Figure Sensitivity of seismic hazard at Manchester site to the strength of the prior on b Figure Sensitivity of seismic hazard at Topeka site to the strength of the prior on b Figure Sensitivity of seismic hazard at Manchester site to the choice of magnitude weights Figure Sensitivity of seismic hazard at Topeka site to the choice of magnitude weights Figure Sensitivity of seismic hazard from source NAP at Manchester site to the eight alternative recurrence maps for Case B magnitude weights Figure Sensitivity of seismic hazard from source MID-C A at Topeka site to the eight alternative recurrence maps for Case B magnitude weights Figure Mean recurrence-parameter map for the study region under the highest weighted source-zone configuration in the master logic tree. See Sections 6.3 and 7.5 for all mean maps Figure Map of the uncertainty in the estimated recurrence parameters, expressed as the coefficient of variation of the rate (left) and the standard deviation of the b-value (right) for the study region, under the highest weighted source-zone configuration in the master logic tree. See Appendix J for all maps of uncertainty xxxi

36 Figure First of eight equally likely realizations of the recurrence-parameter map for the study region under the highest weighted source-zone configuration in the master logic tree. See Appendix J for maps of all realizations for all source-zone configurations Figure Eighth of eight equally likely realizations of the recurrence-parameter map for the study region under the highest weighted source-zone configuration in the master logic tree. See Appendix J for maps of all realizations for all source-zone configurations Figure Map of geographic areas considered in the exploration of model results Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the USGS Eastern Tennessee area using Case A magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16% 84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the USGS Eastern Tennessee area using Case B magnitude weights Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the USGS Eastern Tennessee area using Case E magnitude weights Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the central New England area using Case A magnitude weights Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the central New England area using Case B magnitude weights Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the central New England area using Case E magnitude weights Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the Nemaha Ridge area using Case A magnitude weights Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the Nemaha Ridge area using Case B magnitude weights Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the Nemaha Ridge area using Case E magnitude weights Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the Miami, FL, area using Case A magnitude weights Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the Miami, FL, area using Case B magnitude weights Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the Miami, FL, area using Case E magnitude weights Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the St. Paul, MN, area using Case A magnitude weights Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the St. Paul, MN, area using Case B magnitude weights Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the St. Paul, MN, area using Case E magnitude weights Figure Recurrence parameters for the ECC-AM, MID-C A, and NAP seismotectonic source zones and Case A magnitude weights computed using an objective adaptive kernel approach xxxii

37 Figure Likelihood distribution for rate parameter derived using Equation for N = 2 and T = Bottom: resulting cumulative distribution function. Dashed lines show the cumulative probability levels for the Miller and Rice (1983) discrete approximation of a continuous probability distribution Figure Uncertainty distributions for the age of Charleston RLMEs Figure Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUS SSC Project catalog. Solid lines indicate the boundaries of the seismotectonic source zones (narrow interpretation) Figure Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUS SSC Project catalog with good quality depth determinations used for assessing crustal thickness. Solid lines indicate the boundaries of the seismotectonic source zones (narrow interpretation) Figure Distribution of better-quality focal depths in Mmax source zones Figure (1 of 3) Distribution of better-quality focal depths in seismotectonic source zones Figure (2 of 3) Distribution of better-quality focal depths in seismotectonic source zones Figure (3 of 3) Distribution of better-quality focal depths in seismotectonic source zones Figure Map showing the RLME sources characterized in the CEUS SSC model. Detailed alternatives to the source geometries are shown on figures associated with each RLME discussion Figure 6.1-2a Map showing the RLME sources and seismicity from the CEUS SSC earthquake catalog. Some of the RLMEs occur in regions of elevated seismicity, but others do not Figure 6.1-2b Close-up of the Wabash Valley and New Madrid/Reelfoot Rift RLME sources and seismicity from the CEUS SSC earthquake catalog. Some of the RLMEs occur in regions of elevated seismicity, but others do not Figure Logic tree for the Charlevoix RLME source Figure Seismicity and tectonic features of the Charlevoix RLME Figure Magnetic and gravity anomaly maps of the Charlevoix RLME Figure a Logic tree for the Charleston RLME source Figure b Logic tree for the Charleston RLME source Figure Charleston RLME source zones with (a) total magnetic anomaly and (b) residual isostatic gravity data Figure Postulated faults and tectonic features in the Charleston region Figure Postulated faults and tectonic features in the local Charleston area Figure a Postulated faults and tectonic features in the Charleston region with Charleston RLME source zones Figure b Postulated faults and tectonic features in the local Charleston area with Charleston RLME source zones Figure Schematic diagram showing contemporary, maximum, and minimum constraining age sample locations xxxiii

38 Figure Charleston space-time diagram of earthquakes interpreted from paleoliquefaction, contemporary-ages-only scenario Figure Charleston space-time diagram of earthquakes interpreted from paleoliquefaction, all-ages scenario Figure Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake A, contemporary-ages-only scenario Figure Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake B, contemporary-ages-only scenario Figure Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake C, contemporary-ages-only scenario Figure Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake D, contemporary-ages-only scenario Figure Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake E, contemporary-ages-only scenario Figure Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake A, all-ages scenario Figure Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake B, all-ages scenario Figure Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake C, all-ages scenario Figure Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake D, all-ages scenario Figure Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake E, all-ages scenario Figure Uncertainty distributions for the age of Charleston RLMEs Figure Logic tree for the Cheraw fault RLME source Figure Map (c) and hillshade relief images (a, b, and d) showing location of mapped Cheraw fault, possible northeast extension, and paleoseismic locality Figure Cheraw RLME source relative to (a) total magnetic anomaly and (b) residual isostatic gravity data Figure Meers fault location Figure Logic tree for the Meers fault source Figure Logic tree for the NMFS RLME source Figure Map showing seismicity and major subsurface structural features in the New Madrid region Figure Map showing geomorphic and near-surface tectonic features in the New Madrid region and locations of NMFS RLME fault sources Figure Rupture segments (a) and models (b) for the New Madrid faults from Johnston and Schweig (1996) and (c) the NMFS RLME fault sources Figure Map of NMSZ showing estimated ages and measured sizes of liquefaction features Figure Earthquake chronology for NMSZ from dating and correlation of liquefaction features at sites (listed at top) along N-S transect across region Figure Probability distributions for the age of the AD 900 and AD 1450 NMFS RLMEs Figure Liquefaction fields for the , AD 1450, and AD 900 earthquakes as interpreted from spatial distribution and stratigraphy of sand blows xxxiv

39 Figure a Logic tree for the Reelfoot Rift Eastern Rift Margin South RLME source. Two options for the southern extent of the ERM-S are considered: ERM-SCC includes the Crittenden County fault zone, and ERM-SRP includes the postulated zone of deformation based on fault picks identified in a high-resolution seismic profile along the Mississippi River Figure b Logic tree for the Reelfoot Rift Eastern Rift Margin North RLME source Figure Map showing structural features and paleoseismic investigation sites along the eastern margin of the Reelfoot rift. The inset map shows the locations of inferred basement faults that border and cross the Reelfoot rift (Csontos et al., 2008) and the inferred Joiner Ridge Meeman-Shelby fault (JR-MSF; Odum et al., 2010) Figure Maps showing surficial geology and locations of subsurface investigations at (a) Meeman-Shelby Forest State Park locality and (b) Union City site (MSF and UC on Figure ). Modified from Cox et al. (2006) and Odum et al. (2010) Figure Figure showing the timing of events along the eastern Reelfoot rift margin. Modified from Cox (2009) Figure Logic tree for the Reelfoot rift Marianna RLME source Figure Map showing tectonic features and locations of paleoliquefaction sites in the vicinity of Marianna, Arkansas Figure Map showing liquefaction features near Daytona Beach lineament southwest of Marianna, Arkansas Figure Logic tree for the Commerce Fault Zone RLME source Figure Map showing tectonic features, seismicity, and paleoseismic localities along the Commerce Fault Zone RLME source Figure Location of the Commerce geophysical lineament and Commerce Fault Zone RLME source relative to the (a) regional magnetic anomaly map and (b) regional gravity anomaly map Figure Space-time diagram showing constraints on the location and timing of late Pleistocene and Holocene paleoearthquakes that may be associated with the Commerce Fault Zone RLME source Figure Logic tree for the Wabash Valley RLME source Figure Map showing seismicity, subsurface structural features, paleoearthquake energy centers, and postulated neotectonic deformation in the Wabash Valley region of southern Illinois and southern Indiana Figure Wabash Valley RLME source relative to (a) magnetic anomaly, and (b) residual isostatic gravity data Figure Map showing the two Mmax zones for the narrow interpretation of the Mesozoic-and-younger extended zone Figure Map showing the two Mmax zones for the wide interpretation of the Mesozoic-and-younger extended zone Figure Distributions for m max-obs for the Mmax distributed seismicity source zones Figure Mmax distributions for the study region treated as a single Mmax zone Figure Mmax distributions for the MESE-N Mmax zone xxxv

40 Figure Mmax distributions for the MESE-W Mmax zone Figure Mmax distributions for the NMESE-N Mmax zone Figure Mmax distributions for the NMESE-W Mmax zone Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended, narrow geometry for MESE; Case A magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended, narrow geometry for MESE; Case B magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended, narrow geometry for MESE; Case E magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended, wide geometry for MESE; Case A magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended, wide geometry for MESE; Case B magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended, wide geometry for MESE; Case E magnitude weights Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for study region using Case A magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16% 84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for study region using Case B magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16% 84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for study region using Case E magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16% 84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MESE-N using Case A magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16% 84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MESE-N using Case B magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16% 84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure xxxvi

41 Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MESE-N using Case E magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16% 84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MESE-W using Case A magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16% 84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MESE-W using Case B magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16% 84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MESE-W using Case E magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16% 84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for NMESE-N using Case A magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16% 84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for NMESE-N using Case B magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16% 84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for NMESE-N using Case E magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16% 84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for NMESE-W using Case A magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16% 84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for NMESE-W using Case B magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16% 84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for NMESE-W using Case E magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16% 84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure Figure Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek graben is not part of the Reelfoot rift (RR) and the Paleozoic Extended Crust is narrow (PEZ- N) Figure Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek graben is part of the Reelfoot rift (RR_RCG) and the Paleozoic Extended Crust is narrow (PEZ-N) Figure Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek graben is not part of the Reelfoot rift (RR) and the Paleozoic Extended Crust is wide (PEZ-W) Figure Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek graben is part of the Reelfoot rift (RR_RCG) and the Paleozoic Extended Crust is wide (PEZ- W) Figure Example of comparing seismotectonic zones with magnetic map developed as part of the CEUS SSC Project Figure Example of comparing seismotectonic zones with isostatic gravity map developed as part of the CEUS SSC Project xxxvii

42 Figure Map of seismicity based on the earthquake catalog developed for the CEUS SSC Project Figure Map showing example comparison of seismotectonic zones with seismicity. Note the non-uniform spatial distribution of seismicity within the zones. Spatial smoothing of a- and b-values accounts for these spatial variations Figure Logic tree for the seismotectonic zones branch of the master logic tree Figure Significant earthquakes and paleoseismology of the SLR seismotectonic zone Figure Tectonic features of the SLR seismotectonic zone Figure Magnetic and gravity anomaly maps of the SLR seismotectonic zone Figure Significant earthquakes and paleoseismic study area in the region of the GMH seismotectonic zone Figure Igneous rocks attributed to the GMH seismotectonic zone Figure Relocated hypocentral depths and crustal depth of the GMH seismotectonic zone Figure Magnetic and gravity anomaly maps of the GMH seismotectonic zone Figure Seismicity of the NAP seismotectonic zone Figure Magnetic and gravity anomaly maps of the NAP seismotectonic zone Figure Seismicity and tectonic features of the PEZ seismotectonic zone Figure Magnetic and gravity anomaly maps of the PEZ seismotectonic zone Figure Map showing seismicity, subsurface Paleozoic and basement structures, and postulated energy centers for prehistoric earthquakes Figure Map showing alternative boundaries for Precambrian (proto-illinois basin) rift basins Figure Maps showing the IBEB source zone boundaries, seismicity, and prehistoric earthquake centers relative to (a) regional magnetic anomalies and (b) regional gravity anomalies Figure Map of seismicity and geomorphic features and faults showing evidence for Quaternary neotectonic deformation and reactivation. Inset map shows basement structures associated with the Reelfoot rift Figure Maps showing geophysical anomalies in the Reelfoot rift region Figure Mesozoic basins within the ECC-AM zone Figure Seismicity within the ECC-AM and AHEX zones Figure Magnetic and gravity data for ECC-AM and AHEX zones Figure Estimated locations of the 1755 M 6.1 Cape Ann earthquake Figure Correlation of interpreted transitional crust with the East Coast magnetic anomaly Figure The ECC-GC seismotectonic zone Figure The GHEX seismotectonic zone Figure The OKA seismotectonic zone and regional gravity and magnetic data Figure Simplified tectonic map showing the distribution of principal basement faults, rifts, and sutures in the Midcontinent xxxviii

43 Figure Maps showing major basement structural features relative to (a) regional magnetic anomalies and (b) regional gravity anomalies Figure Seismic zones and maximum observed earthquakes in the MidC zone Figure Alternative MidC source zone configurations m Figure (1 of 3) Distributions for max obs for the seismotectonic distributed seismicity source zones m Figure (2 of 3) Distributions for max obs for the seismotectonic distributed seismicity source zones m Figure (3 of 3) Distributions for max obs for the seismotectonic distributed seismicity source zones Figure Mmax distributions for the AHEX seismotectonic zone Figure Mmax distributions for the ECC_AM seismotectonic zone Figure Mmax distributions for the ECC_GC seismotectonic zone Figure Mmax distributions for the GHEX seismotectonic zone Figure Mmax distributions for the GMH seismotectonic zone Figure Mmax distributions for the IBEB seismotectonic zone Figure Mmax distributions for the MidC-A seismotectonic zone Figure Mmax distributions for the MidC-B seismotectonic zone Figure Mmax distributions for the MidC-C seismotectonic zone Figure Mmax distributions for the MidC-D seismotectonic zone Figure Mmax distributions for the NAP seismotectonic zone Figure Mmax distributions for the OKA seismotectonic zone Figure Mmax distributions for the PEZ_N seismotectonic zone Figure Mmax distributions for the PEZ_W seismotectonic zone Figure Mmax distributions for the RR seismotectonic zone Figure Mmax distributions for the RR_RCG seismotectonic zone Figure Mmax distributions for the SLR seismotectonic zone Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration with narrow interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Midcontinent; Case A magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration with narrow interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Midcontinent; Case B magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration with narrow interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Midcontinent; Case E magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration with narrow interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Reelfoot rift; Case A magnitude weights xxxix

44 Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration with narrow interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Reelfoot rift; Case B magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration with narrow interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Reelfoot rift; Case E magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration with wide interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Midcontinent; Case A magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration with wide interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Midcontinent; Case B magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration with wide interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Midcontinent; Case E magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the sourcezone configuration with wide interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Reelfoot rift; Case A magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the sourcezone configuration with wide interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Reelfoot rift; Case B magnitude weights Figure Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the sourcezone configuration with wide interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Reelfoot rift; Case E magnitude weights Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for AHEX using Case A magnitude weights. No earthquake counts are shown because this source zone contains no seismicity Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for AHEX using Case B magnitude weights. No earthquake counts are shown because this source zone contains no seismicity Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for AHEX using Case E magnitude weights. No earthquake counts are shown because this source zone contains no seismicity Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for ECC_AM using Case A magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16% 84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for ECC_AM using Case B magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for ECC_AM using Case E magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for ECC_GC using Case A magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for ECC_GC using Case B magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for ECC_GC using Case E magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure xl

45 Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for GHEX using Case A magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for GHEX using Case B magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for GHEX using Case E magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for GMH using Case A magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for GMH using Case B magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for GMH using Case E magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for IBEB using Case A magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for IBEB using Case B magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for IBEB using Case E magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC-A using Case A magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC-A using Case B magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC-A using Case E magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC B using Case A magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC-B using Case B magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC B using Case E magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC C using Case A magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC C using Case B magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC C using Case E magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC D using Case A magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC D using Case B magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC D using Case E magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for NAP using Case A magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure xli

46 Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for NAP using Case B magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for NAP using Case E magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for OKA using Case A magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for OKA using Case B magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for OKA using Case E magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for PEZ_N using Case A magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for PEZ_N using Case B magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for PEZ_N using Case E magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for PEZ_W using Case A magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for PEZ_W using Case B magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for PEZ_W using Case E magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for RR using Case A magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for RR using Case B magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for RR using Case E magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for RR_RCG using Case A magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for RR_RCG using Case B magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for RR_RCG using Case E magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for SLR using Case A magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for SLR using Case B magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for SLR using Case E magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure Figure Map showing the study area and seven test sites for the CEUS SSC Project Figure Mean VS profile for shallow soil site Figure Mean VS profile for deep soil site xlii

47 Figure Mean amplification factors for shallow soil site Figure Mean amplification factors for deep soil site Figure 8.2-1a Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard Figure 8.2-1b Central Illinois 1 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard Figure 8.2-1c Central Illinois PGA rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard Figure 8.2-1d Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-1e Central Illinois 1 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-1f Central Illinois PGA rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-1g Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source Figure 8.2-1h Central Illinois 1 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source Figure 8.2-1i Central Illinois PGA rock hazard: contribution by background source Figure 8.2-1j Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models Figure 8.2-1k Central Illinois 1 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models Figure 8.2-1l Central Illinois PGA rock hazard: comparison of three source models Figure 8.2-1m Central Illinois 10 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-1n Central Illinois 1 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-1o Central Illinois PGA shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-1p Central Illinois 10 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-1q Central Illinois 1 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-1r Central Illinois PGA deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-1s Central Illinois 10 Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions Figure 8.2-1t Central Illinois 1 Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions Figure 8.2-1u Central Illinois PGA hazard: comparison of three site conditions Figure 8.2-1v Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones Figure 8.2-1w Central Illinois 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones Figure 8.2-1x Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source IBEB Figure 8.2-1y Central Illinois 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source IBEB Figure 8.2-1z Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options Figure 8.2-1aa Central Illinois 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options Figure 8.2-1bb Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source IBEB, Case A xliii

48 Figure 8.2-1cc Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source IBEB, Case B Figure 8.2-1dd Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source IBEB, Case E Figure 8.2-1ee Central Illinois 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source IBEB, Case A Figure 8.2-1ff Central Illinois 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source IBEB, Case B Figure 8.2-1gg Central Illinois 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source IBEB, Case E Figure 8.2-2a Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard Figure 8.2-2b Chattanooga 1 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard Figure 8.2-2c Chattanooga PGA rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard Figure 8.2-2d Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-2e Chattanooga 1 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-2f Chattanooga PGA rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-2g Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source Figure 8.2-2h Chattanooga 1 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source Figure 8.2-2i Chattanooga PGA rock hazard: contribution by background source Figure 8.2-2j Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models Figure 8.2-2k Chattanooga is 1 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models Figure 8.2-2l Chattanooga PGA rock hazard: comparison of three source models Figure 8.2-2m Chattanooga 10 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-2n Chattanooga 1 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-2o Chattanooga PGA shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-2p Chattanooga 10 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-2q Chattanooga 1 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-2r Chattanooga PGA deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-2s Chattanooga 10 Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions Figure 8.2-2t Chattanooga 1 Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions Figure 8.2-2u Chattanooga PGA hazard: comparison of three site conditions Figure 8.2-2v Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones xliv

49 Figure 8.2-2w Chattanooga 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones Figure 8.2-2x Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source PEZ-N Figure 8.2-2y Chattanooga 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source PEZ-N Figure 8.2-2z Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options Figure 8.2-2aa Chattanooga 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options Figure 8.2-2bb Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source PEZ-N, Case A Figure 8.2-2cc Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source PEZ-N, Case B Figure 8.2-2dd Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source PEZ-N, Case E Figure 8.2-2ee Chattanooga 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source PEZ-N, Case A Figure 8.2-2ff Chattanooga 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source PEZ-N, Case B Figure 8.2-2gg Chattanooga 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source PEZ-N, Case E Figure 8.2-3a Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard Figure 8.2-3b Houston 1 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard Figure 8.2-3c Houston PGA rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard Figure 8.2-3d Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-3e Houston 1 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-3f Houston PGA rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-3g Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source Figure 8.2-3h Houston 1 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source Figure 8.2-3i Houston PGA rock hazard: contribution by background source Figure 8.2-3j Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models Figure 8.2-3k Houston is 1 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models Figure 8.2-3l Houston PGA rock hazard: comparison of three source models Figure 8.2-3m Houston 10 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-3n Houston 1 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-3o Houston PGA shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-3p Houston 10 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-3q Houston 1 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background xlv

50 Figure 8.2-3r Houston PGA deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-3s Houston 10 Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions Figure 8.2-3t Houston 1 Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions Figure 8.2-3u Houston PGA hazard: comparison of three site conditions Figure 8.2-3v Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones Figure 8.2-3w Houston 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones Figure 8.2-3x Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source GHEX Figure 8.2-3y Houston 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source GHEX Figure 8.2-3z Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options Figure 8.2-3aa Houston 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options Figure 8.2-3bb Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source GHEX, Case A Figure 8.2-3cc Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source GHEX, Case B Figure 8.2-3dd Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source GHEX, Case E Figure 8.2-3ee Houston 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source GHEX, Case A Figure 8.2-3ff Houston 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source GHEX, Case B Figure 8.2-3gg Houston 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source GHEX, Case E Figure 8.2-4a Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard Figure 8.2-4b Jackson 1 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard Figure 8.2-4c Jackson PGA rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard Figure 8.2-4d Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-4e Jackson 1 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-4f Jackson PGA rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-4g Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source Figure 8.2-4h Jackson 1 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source Figure 8.2-4i Jackson PGA rock hazard: contribution by background source Figure 8.2-4j Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models Figure 8.2-4k Jackson is 1 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models Figure 8.2-4l Jackson PGA rock hazard: comparison of three source models Figure 8.2-4m Jackson 10 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-4n Jackson 1 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background xlvi

51 Figure 8.2-4o Jackson PGA shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-4p Jackson 10 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-4q Jackson 1 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-4r Jackson PGA deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-4s Jackson 10 Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions Figure 8.2-4t Jackson 1 Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions Figure 8.2-4u Jackson PGA hazard: comparison of three site conditions Figure 8.2-4v Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones Figure 8.2-4w Jackson 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones Figure 8.2-4x Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source ECC-GC Figure 8.2-4y Jackson 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source ECC-GC Figure 8.2-4z Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options Figure 8.2-4aa Jackson 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options Figure 8.2-4bb Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC-GC, Case A Figure 8.2-4cc Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC-GC, Case B Figure 8.2-4dd Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC-GC, Case E Figure 8.2-4ee Jackson 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC-GC, Case A Figure 8.2-4ff Jackson 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC- GC, Case B Figure 8.2-4gg Jackson 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC-GC, Case E Figure 8.2-5a Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard Figure 8.2-5b Manchester 1 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard Figure 8.2-5c Manchester PGA rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard Figure 8.2-5d Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-5e Manchester 1 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-5f Manchester PGA rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-5g Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source Figure 8.2-5h Manchester 1 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source Figure 8.2-5i Manchester PGA rock hazard: contribution by background source Figure 8.2-5j Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models xlvii

52 Figure 8.2-5k Manchester is 1 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models Figure 8.2-5l Manchester PGA rock hazard: comparison of three source models Figure 8.2-5m Manchester 10 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-5n Manchester 1 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-5o Manchester PGA shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-5p Manchester 10 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-5q Manchester 1 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-5r Manchester PGA deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-5s Manchester 10 Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions Figure 8.2-5t Manchester 1 Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions Figure 8.2-5u Manchester PGA hazard: comparison of three site conditions Figure 8.2-5v Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones Figure 8.2-5w Manchester 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones Figure 8.2-5x Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source NAP Figure 8.2-5y Manchester 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source NAP Figure 8.2-5z Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options Figure 8.2-5aa Manchester 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options Figure 8.2-5bb Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source NAP, Case A Figure 8.2-5cc Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source NAP, Case B Figure 8.2-5dd Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source NAP, Case E Figure 8.2-5ee Manchester 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source NAP, Case A Figure 8.2-5ff Manchester 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source NAP, Case B Figure 8.2-5gg Manchester 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source NAP, Case E Figure 8.2-6a Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard Figure 8.2-6b Savannah 1 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard Figure 8.2-6c Savannah PGA rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard Figure 8.2-6d Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background xlviii

53 Figure 8.2-6e Savannah 1 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-6f Savannah PGA rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-6g Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source Figure 8.2-6h Savannah 1 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source Figure 8.2-6i Savannah PGA rock hazard: contribution by background source Figure 8.2-6j Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models Figure 8.2-6k Savannah is 1 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models Figure 8.2-6l Savannah PGA rock hazard: comparison of three source models Figure 8.2-6m Savannah 10 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-6n Savannah 1 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-6o Savannah PGA shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-6p Savannah 10 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-6q Savannah 1 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-6r Savannah PGA deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-6s Savannah 10 Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions Figure 8.2-6t Savannah 1 Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions Figure 8.2-6u Savannah PGA hazard: comparison of three site conditions Figure 8.2-6v Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones Figure 8.2-6w Savannah 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones Figure 8.2-6x Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source ECC-AM Figure 8.2-6y Savannah 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source ECC-AM Figure 8.2-6z Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options Figure 8.2-6aa Savannah 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options Figure 8.2-6bb Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC-AM, Case A Figure 8.2-6cc Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC-AM, Case B Figure 8.2-6dd Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC-AM, Case E Figure 8.2-6ee Savannah 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC-AM, Case A Figure 8.2-6ff Savannah 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC-AM, Case B xlix

54 Figure 8.2-6gg Savannah 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC-AM, Case E Figure 8.2-7a Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard Figure 8.2-7b Topeka 1 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard Figure 8.2-7c Topeka PGA rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard Figure 8.2-7d Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-7e Topeka 1 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-7f Topeka PGA rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-7g Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source Figure 8.2-7h Topeka 1 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source Figure 8.2-7i Topeka PGA rock hazard: contribution by background source Figure 8.2-7j Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models Figure 8.2-7k Topeka is 1 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models Figure 8.2-7l Topeka PGA rock hazard: comparison of three source models Figure 8.2-7m Topeka 10 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-7n Topeka 1 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-7o Topeka PGA shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-7p Topeka 10 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-7q Topeka 1 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-7r Topeka PGA deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background Figure 8.2-7s Topeka 10 Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions Figure 8.2-7t Topeka 1 Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions Figure 8.2-7u Topeka PGA hazard: comparison of three site conditions Figure 8.2-7v Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones Figure 8.2-7w Topeka 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones Figure 8.2-7x Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source MidC-A Figure 8.2-7y Topeka 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source MidC-A Figure 8.2-7z Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options Figure 8.2-7aa Topeka 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options Figure 8.2-7bb Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source MidC-A, Case A Figure 8.2-7cc Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source MidC-A, Case B l

55 Figure 8.2-7dd Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source MidC-A, Case E Figure 8.2-7ee Topeka 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source MidC-A, Case A Figure 8.2-7ff Topeka 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source MidC- A, Case B Figure 8.2-7gg Topeka 1 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source MidC-A, Case E Figure Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation at Savannah for the Charleston regional source Figure Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation at Savannah for the Charleston regional source Figure Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Manchester for the Charlevoix area source Figure Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Manchester for the Charlevoix area source Figure Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Manchester for the Charlevoix area source Figure Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Manchester for the Charlevoix area source Figure Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Topeka for the Cheraw fault source Figure Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Topeka for the Cheraw fault source Figure Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Topeka for the Cheraw fault source Figure Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation at Topeka for the Cheraw fault source Figure Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the Commerce area source Figure Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the Commerce area source Figure Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the ERM-N area source Figure Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the ERM-N area source Figure Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the ERM-S area source Figure Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the ERM-S area source Figure Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the Marianna area source Figure Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the Marianna area source li

56 Figure Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Topeka for the Meers fault and OKA area sources Figure Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Houston for the Meers fault and OKA area sources Figure Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Topeka for the Meers fault and OKA area sources Figure Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Houston for the Meers fault and OKA area sources Figure Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation at Houston for the OKA area source Figure Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation at Houston for the OKA area source Figure Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Topeka for the OKA area source Figure Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Houston for the OKA area source Figure Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Topeka for the OKA area source Figure Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Houston for the OKA area source Figure Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Topeka for the Meers fault source Figure Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Houston for the Meers fault source Figure Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Topeka for the Meers fault source Figure Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Houston for the Meers fault source Figure Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the NMFS fault sources Figure Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the NMFS fault sources Figure Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Central Illinois for the Wabash Valley area source Figure Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Central Illinois for the Wabash Valley area source Figure Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Central Illinois for the Wabash Valley area source Figure Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Central Illinois for the Wabash Valley area source Figure Hz sensitivity to fault ruptures vs. point source for the Central Illinois site from the Mid C A background source Figure Hz sensitivity to fault ruptures vs. point source for the Central Illinois site from the Mid C A background source Figure COV MH from EPRI (1989) team sources vs. ground motion amplitude for seven test sites: PGA (top), 10 Hz SA (middle), and 1 Hz SA (bottom) lii

57 Figure COV MH from EPRI (1989) team sources vs. seismic hazard (i.e., annual frequency of exceedance) for seven test sites: PGA (top), 10 Hz SA (middle), and 1 9-Hz SA (bottom) Figure COV MH from seismic source experts (PEGASOS project) vs. amplitude (top) and annual frequency (bottom) Figure COV K and COV MH from Charleston alternatives for PGA, plotted vs. PGA amplitude (top) and hazard (bottom). COV MH is the total COV of mean hazard; see Table for other labels for curves Figure COV K and COV MH from Charleston alternatives for 10 Hz, plotted vs. 10 Hz amplitude (top) and hazard (bottom). COV MH is the total COV of mean hazard; see Table for other labels for curves Figure COV K and COV MH from Charleston alternatives for 1 Hz, plotted vs. 1 Hz amplitude (top) and hazard (bottom). COV MH is the total COV of mean hazard; see Table for other labels for curves Figure COV K and COV MH of total hazard from New Madrid for 1 Hz, plotted vs. 1 Hz amplitude (top) and hazard (bottom). COV MH is the total COV; see the text for other labels for curves Figure PGA hazard curves for Manchester test site Figure COV MH of PGA hazard at Manchester site from ground motion equation vs. PGA Figure COV of PGA hazard at Manchester site from ground motion equation vs. hazard Figure COV of 10 Hz hazard at Manchester site from ground motion equations vs. hazard Figure COV of 1 Hz hazard at Manchester site from ground motion equations vs. hazard Figure Hz spectral acceleration hazard curves for Manchester test site Figure COV MH of PGA hazard at Chattanooga from ground motion equation vs. hazard Figure COV MH of 10 Hz hazard at Chattanooga from ground motion equation vs. hazard Figure COV MH of 1 Hz hazard at Chattanooga site from ground motion equation vs. hazard Figure PGA hazard curves for Savannah test site Figure COV MH of PGA hazard at Savannah site from ground motion equations vs. hazard Figure COV MH of 10 Hz hazard at Savannah site from ground motion equations vs. hazard Figure COV MH of 1 Hz hazard at Savannah site from ground motion equations vs. hazard Figure PGA hazard curves for Columbia site Figure COV MH of PGA hazard at Columbia from ground motion equations vs. hazard liii

58 Figure COV MH of 10 Hz hazard at Columbia from ground motion equations vs. hazard Figure COV MH of 1 Hz hazard at Columbia from ground motion equations vs. hazard Figure COV MH of PGA hazard at Chattanooga (New Madrid only) vs. hazard Figure COV MH of 10 Hz hazard at Chattanooga (New Madrid only) vs. hazard Figure COV MH of 1 Hz hazard at Chattanooga (New Madrid only) vs. hazard Figure COV MH for PGA and 1 Hz SA vs. ground motion amplitude resulting from alternative ground motion experts, PEGASOS project Figure COV MH for PGA and 1 Hz SA vs. mean hazard from alternative ground motion experts, PEGASOS project Figure COV HAZ from ground motion equations vs. mean hazard for Chattanooga Figure COV MH from ground motion equations vs. mean hazard for Central Illinois Figure COV MH from soil experts vs. PGA and 1 Hz SA, PEGASOS project Figure COV MH from soil experts vs. mean hazard for PGA and 1 Hz SA, PEGASOS project Figure COV MH resulting from site response models vs. mean hazard for four sites, 1 Hz (top) and 10 Hz (bottom) Figure 11-1 Geologic time scale (Walker and Geissman, 2009) Figure A-1 GEBCO elevation data for the CEUS study area (BODC, 2009).... A-22 Figure A-2 CEUS SSC independent earthquake catalog... A-24 Figure A-3 Bedrock geology and extended crust after Kanter (1994)... A-26 Figure A-4 Crustal provinces after Rohs and Van Schmus (2007)... A-28 Figure A-5 Geologic map of North America... A-31 Figure A-6 Locations of geologic cross sections in the CEUS... A-33 Figure A-7 Precambrian crustal boundary after Van Schmus et al. (1996)... A-35 Figure A-8a Precambrian geology and features after Reed (1993)... A-37 Figure A-8b Explanation of Precambrian geology and features after Reed (1993)... A-38 Figure A-9 Precambrian provinces after Van Schmus et al. (2007)... A-40 Figure A-10 Precambrian units after Whitmeyer and Karlstrom (2007)... A-42 Figure A-11 Surficial materials in the conterminous United States after Soller et al. (2009)... A-44 Figure A-12 Basement and sediment thickness in the USGS Crustal Database for North America. Symbol size represents overlying sediment thickness (km); symbol color represents basement thickness (km).... A-46 Figure A-13 Top of basement P-wave seismic velocity in the USGS Crustal Database for North America... A-47 Figure A-14 Sediment thickness for North America and neighboring regions... A-49 Figure A-15 Physiographic divisions of the conterminous United States after Fenneman and Johnson (1946)... A-51 Figure A-16 CEUS SSC free-air gravity anomaly grid. Shaded relief with 315-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied.... A-54 liv

59 Figure A-17 CEUS SSC free-air gravity anomaly grid. Shaded relief with 180-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied.... A-55 Figure A-18 CEUS SSC complete Bouguer gravity anomaly grid with free-air gravity anomaly in marine areas. Shaded relief with 315-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied.... A-56 Figure A-19 CEUS SSC complete Bouguer gravity anomaly grid with free-air gravity anomaly in marine areas. Shaded relief with 180-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied.... A-57 Figure A-20 CEUS SSC residual isostatic gravity anomaly grid. Shaded relief with 315- degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied.... A-58 Figure A-21 CEUS SSC residual isostatic gravity anomaly grid Shaded relief with 180- degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied.... A-59 Figure A-22 CEUS SSC regional isostatic gravity anomaly grid... A-60 Figure A-23 CEUS SSC first vertical derivative of residual isostatic gravity anomaly grid.... A-61 Figure A-24 CEUS SSC first vertical derivative of Bouguer gravity anomaly grid with free-air anomaly in marine areas... A-62 Figure A-25 CEUS SSC complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly grid low pass filtered at 240 km... A-63 Figure A-26 CEUS SSC complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly grid high pass filtered at 240 km. Shaded relief with 315-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied.... A-64 Figure A-27 CEUS SSC complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly grid high pass filtered at 240 km. Shaded relief with 180-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied.... A-65 Figure A-28 CEUS SSC complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly grid high pass filtered at 120 km. Shaded relief with 315-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied.... A-66 Figure A-29 CEUS SSC complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly grid high pass filtered at 120 km. Shaded relief with 180-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied.... A-67 Figure A-30 CEUS SSC complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly grid upward continued to 40 km... A-68 Figure A-31 CEUS SSC complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly grid minus the complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly upward continued to 40 km. Shaded relief with 315-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied.... A-69 Figure A-32 CEUS SSC complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly grid minus the complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly upward continued to 40 km. Shaded relief with 180-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied.... A-70 Figure A-33 CEUS SSC complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly grid upward continued to 100 km... A-71 Figure A-34 CEUS SSC complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly grid minus the complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly anomaly lv

60 upward continued to 100 km. Shaded relief with 315-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied.... A-72 Figure A-35 CEUS SSC complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly grid minus the complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly upward continued to 100 km. Shaded relief with 180-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied.... A-73 Figure A-36 CEUS SSC horizontal derivative of residual isostatic gravity anomaly grid... A-74 Figure A-37 CEUS SSC horizontal derivative of first vertical derivative of residual isostatic gravity anomaly grid... A-75 Figure A-38 Corrected heat flow values from the SMU Geothermal Laboratory Regional Heat Flow Database (2008)... A-77 Figure A-39 CEUS SSC total intensity magnetic anomaly grid (Ravat et al., 2009). Shaded relief with 315-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied.... A-80 Figure A-40 CEUS SSC total intensity magnetic anomaly grid (Ravat et al., 2009). Shaded relief with 180-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied.... A-81 Figure A-41 CEUS SSC differentially reduced to pole magnetic anomaly grid (Ravat, 2009). Shaded relief with 315-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied... A-82 Figure A-42 CEUS SSC differentially reduced to pole magnetic anomaly grid (Ravat, 2009). Shaded relief with 180-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied... A-83 Figure A-43 CEUS SSC tilt derivative of differentially reduced to pole magnetic anomaly grid (degrees) (Ravat, 2009)... A-84 Figure A-44 CEUS SSC horizontal derivative of tilt derivative of differentially reduced to pole magnetic anomaly grid (radians) (Ravat, 2009)... A-85 Figure A-45 CEUS SSC tilt derivative of differentially reduced to pole magnetic anomaly grid (Ravat, 2009)... A-86 Figure A-46 CEUS SSC amplitude of analytic signal magnetic anomaly grid (Ravat, 2009)... A-87 Figure A-47 CEUS SSC paleoliquefaction database... A-89 Figure A-48 CEUS SSC compilation of seismic reflection and seismic refraction lines... A-91 Figure A-49 USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps (Petersen et al., 2008)... A-93 Figure A-50 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of 1 hz with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008)... A-94 Figure A-51 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of 1 hz with 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008)... A-95 Figure A-52 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of 1 hz with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008)... A-96 Figure A-53 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of 3 hz with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008)... A-97 Figure A-54 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of 3 hz with 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008)... A-98 Figure A-55 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of 3 hz with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008)... A-99 Figure A-56 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of 5 hz with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008)... A-100 lvi

61 Figure A-57 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of 5 hz with 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008)... A-101 Figure A-58 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of 5 hz with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008)... A-102 Figure A-59 USGS NSHM peak ground acceleration with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008)... A-103 Figure A-60 USGS NSHM peak ground acceleration with 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008)... A-104 Figure A-61 USGS NSHM peak ground acceleration with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008)... A-105 Figure A-62 Deformation of the North American Plate interior using GPS station data (Calais et al., 2006)... A-107 Figure A-63 Stress measurement update for the CEUS (Hurd, 2010)... A-110 Figure A-64 CEUS SSC Project study area boundary... A-112 Figure A-65 USGS Quaternary fault and fold database (USGS, 2006)... A-114 Figure A-66 Quaternary features compilation for the CEUS (Crone and Wheeler, 2000; Wheeler, 2005; USGS, 2010)... A-116 Figure A-67 CEUS Mesozoic rift basins after Benson (1992)... A-118 Figure A-68 CEUS Mesozoic rift basins after Dennis et al. (2004)... A-120 Figure A-69 CEUS Mesozoic rift basins after Schlische (1993)... A-122 Figure A-70 CEUS Mesozoic rift basins after Withjack et al. (1998)... A-124 Figure A-71 RLME zones for the CEUS... A-126 Figure A-72 Mesozoic and non-mesozoic zones for the CEUS, wide interpretation... A-128 Figure A-73 Mesozoic and non-mesozoic zones for the CEUS, narrow interpretation... A-129 Figure A-74 CEUS seismotectonic zones model A... A-130 Figure A-75 CEUS seismotectonic zones model B... A-131 Figure A-76 CEUS seismotectonic zones model C... A-132 Figure A-77 CEUS seismotectonic zones model D... A-133 Figure E-1 Map of CEUS showing locations of regional data sets included in the CEUS SSC Project paleoliquefaction database, including New Madrid seismic zone and surrounding region; Marianna, Arkansas, area; St. Louis region; Wabash Valley seismic zone and surrounding region; Arkansas-Louisiana-Mississippi region; Charleston seismic zone; Atlantic Coastal region and the Central Virginia seismic zone; Newburyport, Massachusetts, and surrounding region; and Charlevoix seismic zone and surrounding region.... E-68 Figure E-2 Diagram illustrating size parameters of liquefaction features, including sand blow thickness, width, and length; dike width; and sill thickness, as well as some of the diagnostic characteristics of these features.... E-69 Figure E-3 Diagram illustrating sampling strategy for dating of liquefaction features as well as age data, such as 14C maximum and 14C minimum, used to calculate preferred age estimates and related uncertainties of liquefaction features.... E-70 Figure E-4 GIS map of New Madrid seismic zone and surrounding region showing portions of rivers searched for earthquake-induced liquefaction features by M. lvii

62 Tuttle, R. Van Arsdale, and J. Vaughn and collaborators (see explanation); information contributed for this report. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-71 Figure E-5 GIS map of New Madrid seismic zone and surrounding region showing locations of liquefaction features for which there are and are not radiocarbon data. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-72 Figure E-6 GIS map of New Madrid seismic zone and surrounding region showing locations of liquefaction features that are thought to be historical or prehistoric in age or whose ages are poorly constrained. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-73 Figure E-7 GIS map of New Madrid seismic zone and surrounding region showing preferred age estimates of liquefaction features; features whose ages are poorly constrained are excluded. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-74 Figure E-8 GIS map of New Madrid seismic zone and surrounding region showing measured thicknesses of sand blows. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-75 Figure E-9 GIS map of New Madrid seismic zone and surrounding region showing preferred age estimates and measured thicknesses of sand blows. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-76 Figure E-10 GIS map of New Madrid seismic zone and surrounding region showing measured widths of sand dikes. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-77 Figure E-11 GIS map of New Madrid seismic zone and surrounding region showing preferred age estimates and measured widths of sand dikes. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-78 Figure E-12 GIS map of New Madrid seismic zone and surrounding region illustrating preferred age estimates and measured thicknesses of sand blows as well as preferred age estimates and measured widths of sand dikes for sites where sand blows do not occur. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-79 Figure E-13 GIS map of Marianna, Arkansas, area showing seismicity and locations of paleoliquefaction features relative to mapped traces of Eastern Reelfoot rift margin fault, White River fault zone, Big Creek fault zone, Marianna escarpment, and Daytona Beach lineament. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-80 Figure E-14 (A) Trench log and (B) ground-penetrating radar profile, showing vertical sections of sand blows and sand dikes at Daytona Beach SE2 site along the Daytona Beach lineament southwest of Marianna, Arkansas. Vertical scale of GPR profile is exaggerated (modified from Al-Shukri et al., 2009).... E-81 Figure E-15 GIS map of Marianna, Arkansas, area showing locations of liquefaction features for which there are and are not radiocarbon data. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-82 Figure E-16 GIS map of Marianna, Arkansas, area showing locations of liquefaction features that are thought to be historical or prehistoric in age or whose ages are poorly constrained. To date, no liquefaction features thought to have formed during lviii

63 earthquakes have been found in area. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-83 Figure E-17 GIS map of Marianna, Arkansas, area showing preferred age estimates of liquefaction features; features whose ages are poorly constrained are excluded. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-84 Figure E-18 GIS map of Marianna, Arkansas, area showing measured thicknesses of sand blows. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-85 Figure E-19 GIS map of Marianna, Arkansas, area showing preferred age estimates and measured thicknesses of sand blows. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-86 Figure E-20 GIS map of Marianna, Arkansas, area showing measured widths of sand dikes. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-87 Figure E-21 GIS map of Marianna, Arkansas, area showing preferred age estimates and measured widths of sand dikes. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-88 Figure E-22 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing seismicity and portions of rivers searched for earthquake-induced liquefaction features by Tuttle and collaborators; information contributed for this report. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-89 Figure E-23 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing locations of liquefaction features, including several soft-sediment deformation structures, for which there are and are not radiocarbon data. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-90 Figure E-24 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing locations of liquefaction features that are thought to be historical or prehistoric in age or whose ages are poorly constrained. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-91 Figure E-25 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing preferred age estimates of liquefaction features; features whose ages are poorly constrained, including several that are prehistoric in age, are not shown. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-92 Figure E-26 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing measured thicknesses of sand blows at similar scale as used in Figure E-8 of sand blows in New Madrid seismic zone. Note that few sand blows have been found in St. Louis region. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-93 Figure E-27 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing preferred age estimates and measured thicknesses of sand blows. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-94 Figure E-28 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing measured widths of sand dikes at similar scale as that used in Figure E-10 for sand dikes in New Madrid seismic zone. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-95 lix

64 Figure E-29 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing measured widths of sand dikes at similar scale as that used in Figures E-42 and E-48 for sand dikes in the Newburyport and Charlevoix regions, respectively. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-96 Figure E-30 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing preferred age estimates and measured widths of sand dikes. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-97 Figure E-31 GIS map of Wabash Valley seismic zone and surrounding region showing portions of rivers searched for earthquake-induced liquefaction features (digitized from McNulty and Obermeier, 1999). Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-98 Figure E-32 GIS map of Wabash Valley seismic zone and surrounding region showing measured widths of sand dikes at similar scale as that used in Figures E-10 and E- 11 for sand dikes in New Madrid seismic zone. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-99 Figure E-33 GIS map of Wabash Valley region of Indiana and Illinois showing preferred age estimates and paleoearthquake interpretation. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-100 Figure E-34 GIS map of Arkansas-Louisiana-Mississippi (ALM) region showing paleoliquefaction study locations. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-101 Figure E-35 GIS map of Charleston, South Carolina, region showing locations of paleoliquefaction features for which there are and are not radiocarbon dates. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-102 Figure E-36 GIS map of Charleston, South Carolina, region showing locations of historical and prehistoric liquefaction features. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-103 Figure E-37 Map of Atlantic coast region showing areas searched for paleoliquefaction features by Gelinas et al. (1998) and Amick, Gelinas, et al. (1990). Rectangles indicate 7.5-minute quadrangles in which sites were investigated for presence of paleoliquefaction features. The number of sites investigated is shown within that quadrangle, if known. Orange and yellow indicate quadrangles in which paleoliquefaction features were recognized.... E-104 Figure E-38 Map of Central Virginia seismic zone region showing portions of rivers searched for earthquake-induced liquefaction features by Obermeier and McNulty (1998)... E-105 Figure E-39 GIS map of Newburyport, Massachusetts, and surrounding region showing seismicity and portions of rivers searched for earthquake-induced liquefaction features (Gelinas et al., 1998; Tuttle, 2007, 2009). Solid black line crossing map represents Massachusetts New Hampshire border. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-106 Figure E-40 GIS map of Newburyport, Massachusetts, and surrounding region showing locations of liquefaction features for which there are and are not radiocarbon dates. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-107 lx

65 Figure E-41 GIS map of Newburyport, Massachusetts, and surrounding region showing locations of liquefaction features that are thought to be historical or prehistoric in age or whose ages are poorly constrained. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-108 Figure E-42 GIS map of Newburyport, Massachusetts, and surrounding region showing measured widths of sand dikes. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-109 Figure E-43 GIS map of Newburyport, Massachusetts, and surrounding region showing preferred age estimates and measured widths of sand dikes. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-110 Figure E-44 Map of Charlevoix seismic zone and adjacent St. Lawrence Lowlands showing mapped faults and portions of rivers along which reconnaissance and searches for earthquake-induced liquefaction features were performed. Charlevoix seismic zone is defined by concentration of earthquakes and locations of historical earthquakes northeast of Quebec City. Devonian impact structure in vicinity of Charlevoix seismic zone is outlined by black dashed line. Taconic thrust faults are indicated by solid black lines with sawteeth on upper plate; Iapetan rift faults are shown by solid black lines with hachure marks on downthrown side (modified from Tuttle and Atkinson, 2010).... E-111 Figure E-45 GIS map of Charlevoix seismic zone and surrounding region showing locations of liquefaction features, including several soft-sediment deformation structures, for which there are and are not radiocarbon data. Note the location of 1988 M 5.9 Saguenay earthquake northwest of the Charlevoix seismic zone. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-112 Figure E-46 GIS map of Charlevoix seismic zone and surrounding region showing locations of liquefaction features that are modern, historical, or prehistoric in age, or whose ages are poorly constrained. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-113 Figure E-47 GIS map of Charlevoix seismic zone and surrounding region showing preferred age estimates of liquefaction features; features whose ages are poorly constrained are excluded. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-114 Figure E-48 GIS map of Charlevoix seismic zone and surrounding region showing measured widths of sand dikes. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-115 Figure E-49 GIS map of Charlevoix seismic zone and surrounding region showing preferred age estimates and measured widths of sand dikes. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum E-116 Figure E-50 Photograph of moderate-sized sand blow (12 m long, 7 m wide, and 14 cm thick) that formed about 40 km from epicenter of 2001 M 7.7 Bhuj, India, earthquake (from Tuttle, Hengesh, et al., 2002), combined with schematic vertical section illustrating structural and stratigraphic relations of sand blow, sand dike, and source layer (modified from Sims and Garvin, 1995).... E-117 Figure E-51 Tree trunks buried and killed by sand blows, vented during New Madrid earthquakes (from Fuller, 1912).... E-118 lxi

66 Figure E-52 Large sand-blow crater that formed during 2002 M 7.7 Bhuj, India, earthquake. Backpack for scale. Photograph: M. Tuttle (2001).... E-119 Figure E-53 Sand-blow crater that formed during 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake. Photograph: J.K. Hillers (from USGS Photograph Library).... E-120 Figure E-54 Photograph of sand blow and related sand dikes exposed in trench wall and floor in New Madrid seismic zone. Buried soil horizon is displaced downward approximately 1 m across two dikes. Clasts of soil horizon occur within dikes and overlying sand blow. Degree of soil development above and within sand blow suggests that it is at least several hundred years old and formed prior to New Madrid earthquakes. Organic sample (location marked by red flag) from crater fill will provide close minimum age constraint for formation of sand blow. For scale, each colored intervals on shovel handle represents 10 cm. Photograph: M. Tuttle.... E-121 Figure E-55 Sand dikes, ranging up to 35 cm wide, originate in pebbly sand layer and intrude overlying diamicton, These features were exposed in cutbank along Cahokia Creek about 25 km northeast of downtown St. Louis (from Tuttle, 2000).... E-122 Figure E-56 Photograph of small diapirs of medium sand intruding base of overlying deposit of interbedded clayey silt and very fine sand, and clasts of clayey silt in underlying medium sand, observed along Ouelle River in Charlevoix seismic zone. Sand diapirs and clasts probably formed during basal erosion and foundering of clayey silt due to liquefaction of the underlying sandy deposit. Red portion of shovel handle represents 10 cm (modified from Tuttle and Atkinson, 2010).... E-123 Figures E-57 (A) Load cast formed in laminated sediments of Van Norman Lake during 1952 Kern County, California, earthquake. Photograph: J. Sims (from Sims, 1975). (B) Load cast, pseudonodules, and related folds formed in laminated sediment exposed along Malbaie River in Charlevoix seismic zone. Sand dikes crosscutting these same laminated sediments occur at a nearby site. For scale, each painted interval of the shovel handle represents 10 cm (modified from Tuttle and Atkinson, 2010).... E-124 Figure E-58 Log of sand blow and uppermost portions of related sand dikes exposed in trench wall at Dodd site in New Madrid seismic zone. Sand dikes were also observed in opposite wall and trench floor. Sand blow buries pre-event A horizon, and a subsequent A horizon has developed in top of sand blow. Radiocarbon dating of samples collected above and below sand blow brackets its age between 490 and 660 yr BP. Artifact assemblage indicates that sand blow formed during late Mississippian ( yr BP or AD ) (modified from Tuttle, Collier, et al., 1999).... E-125 Figures E-59 (A) Photograph of earthquake-induced liquefaction features found in association with cultural horizon and pit exposed in trench wall near Blytheville, Arkansas, in New Madrid seismic zone. Photograph: M. Tuttle. (B) Trench log of features shown in (A). Sand dike formed in thick Native American occupation horizon containing artifacts of early Mississippian cultural period (950 1,150 yr BP). Cultural pit dug into top of sand dike contains artifacts and charcoal used to constrain minimum age of liquefaction features (modified from Tuttle and Schweig, 1995).... E-126 Figure E-60 In situ tree trunks such as this one buried and killed by sand blow in New Madrid seismic zone offer opportunity to date paleoearthquakes to the year and season of occurrence. Photograph: M. Tuttle.... E-127 lxii

67 Figure E-61 Portion of dendrocalibration curve illustrating conversion of radiocarbon age to calibrated date in calendar years. In example, 2-sigma radiocarbon age of 2,280 2,520 BP is converted to calibrated date of BC (from Tuttle, 1999).... E-128 Figure E-62 Empirical relation developed between A horizon thickness of sand blows and years of soil development in New Madrid region. Horizontal bars reflect uncertainties in age estimates of liquefaction features; diamonds mark midpoints of possible age ranges (from Tuttle et al., 2000)... E-129 Figure E-63 Diagram illustrating earthquake chronology for New Madrid seismic zone for past 5,500 years based on dating and correlation of liquefaction features at sites (listed at top) across region from north to south. Vertical bars represent age estimates of individual sand blows, and horizontal bars represent event times of 138 yr BP (AD ); 500 yr BP ± 150 yr; 1,050 yr BP ± 100 yr; and 4,300 yr BP ± 200 yr (modified from Tuttle, Schweig, et al., 2002; Tuttle et al., 2005).... E-130 Figure E-64 Diagram illustrating earthquake chronology for New Madrid seismic zone for past 2,000 years, similar to upper portion of diagram shown in Figure E-63. As in Figure E-63, vertical bars represent age estimates of individual sand blows, and horizontal bars represent event times. Analysis performed during CEUS SSC Project derived two possible uncertainty ranges for timing of paleoearthquakes, illustrated by the darker and lighter portions of the colored horizontal bars, respectively: 503 yr BP ± 8 yr or 465 yr BP ± 65 yr, and 1,110 yr BP ± 40 yr or 1055 ± 95 yr (modified from Tuttle, Schweig, et al., 2002).... E-131 Figure E-65 Maps showing spatial distributions and sizes of sand blows and sand dikes attributed to 500 and 1,050 yr BP events. Locations and sizes of liquefaction features that formed during AD (138 yr BP) New Madrid earthquake sequence shown for comparison (modified from Tuttle, Schweig, et al., 2002).... E-132 Figure E-66 Liquefaction fields for 138 yr BP (AD ); 500 yr BP (AD 1450); and 1,050 yr BP (AD 900) events as interpreted from spatial distribution and stratigraphy of sand blows (modified from Tuttle, Schweig, et al., 2002). Ellipses define areas where similar-age sand blows have been mapped. Overlapping ellipses indicate areas where sand blows are composed of multiple units that formed during sequence of earthquakes. Dashed ellipse outlines area where historical sand blows are composed of four depositional units. Magnitudes of earthquakes in 500 yr BP and 1,050 yr BP are inferred from comparison with liquefaction fields. Magnitude estimates of December (D), January (J), and February (F) main shocks and large aftershocks taken from several sources; rupture scenario from Johnston and Schweig (1996; modified from Tuttle, Schweig, et al., 2002).... E-133 Figure E-67 Empirical relation between earthquake magnitude and epicentral distance to farthest known sand blows induced by instrumentally recorded earthquakes (modified from Castilla and Audemard, 2007).... E-134 Figure E-68 Distances to farthest known liquefaction features indicate that 500 and 1,050 yr BP New Madrid events were at least of M 6.7 and 6.9, respectively, when plotted on Ambraseys (1988) relation between earthquake magnitude and epicentral distance to farthest surface expression of liquefaction. Similarity in size distribution of historical and prehistoric sand blows, however, suggests that paleoearthquakes were comparable in magnitude to events or M ~7.6 (modified from Tuttle, 2001).... E-135 Figure H-1-1 Region covered by the CEUS SSC model... H-44 lxiii

68 Figure H-2-1 Master logic tree for the CEUS SSC model... H-45 Figure H-3-1 Logic tree for the Mmax zones branch of the master logic tree... H-46 Figure H-3-2 Mesozoic extended (MESE-W) and non-extended (NMESE-W) Mmax zones for the wide interpretation... H-47 Figure H-3-3 Mesozoic extended (MESE-N) and non-extended (NMESE-N) Mmax zones for the narrow interpretation... H-48 Figure H-4-1(a) Logic tree for the seismotectonic zones branch of the master logic tree... H-49 Figure H-4-1(b) Logic tree for the seismotectonic zones branch of the master logic tree... H-50 Figure H-4-2 Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek Graben is not part of the Reelfoot Rift (RR) and the Paleozoic Extended zone is narrow (PEZ-N)... H-51 Figure H-4-3 Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek Graben is part of the Reelfoot Rift (RR-RCG) and the Paleozoic Extended zone is narrow (PEZ-N)... H-52 Figure H-4-4 Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek Graben is not part of the Reelfoot Rift (RR) and the Paleozoic Extended zone is wide (PEZ- W)... H-53 Figure H-4-5 Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek Graben is part of the Reelfoot Rift (RR-RCG) and the Paleozoic Extended zone is wide (PEZ-W)... H-54 Figure H-5-1 Logic tree for the RLME source branch of the master logic tree... H-55 Figure H-5-2 Location of RLME sources in the CEUS SSC model... H-56 Figure H Logic tree for Charlevoix RLME source... H-57 Figure H Charlevoix RLME source geometry... H-58 Figure H-5.2-1(a) Logic tree for Charleston RLME source... H-59 Figure H-5.2-1(b) Logic tree for Charleston RLME source... H-60 Figure H Charleston RLME alternative source geometries... H-61 Figure H Logic tree for Cheraw RLME source... H-62 Figure H Cheraw RLME source geometry... H-63 Figure H Logic tree for Meers RLME source... H-64 Figure H Meers RLME source geometries... H-65 Figure H Logic tree for NMFS RLME source... H-66 Figure H New Madrid South (NMS) fault alternative RMLE source geometries: Blytheville Arch-Bootheel Lineament (BA-BL) and Blytheville Arch-Blytheville fault zone (BA-BFZ)... H-67 Figure H New Madrid North (NMN) fault alternative RMLE source geometries: New Madrid North (NMN_S) and New Madrid North plus extension (NMN_L)... H-68 Figure H Reelfoot Thrust (RFT) fault alternative RMLE source geometries: Reelfoot thrust (RFT_S) and Reelfoot thrust plus extensions (RFT_L)... H-69 Figure H Logic tree for ERM-S RLME source... H-70 Figure H Logic tree for ERM-N RLME source... H-71 Figure H ERM-S RLME source geometries... H-72 lxiv

69 Figure H ERM-N RLME source geometry... H-73 Figure H Logic tree for Marianna RLME source... H-74 Figure H Marianna RLME source geometry... H-75 Figure H Logic tree for Commerce Fault Zone RLME source... H-76 Figure H Commerce RLME source geometry... H-77 Figure H Logic tree for Wabash Valley RLME source... H-78 Figure H Wabash Valley RLME source geometry... H-79 Figure J-1 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 1... J-2 Figure J-2 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 2... J-3 Figure J-3 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 3... J-4 Figure J-4 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 4... J-5 Figure J-5 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 5... J-6 Figure J-6 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 6... J-7 Figure J-7 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 7... J-8 Figure J-8 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 8... J-9 Figure J-9 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights... J-10 Figure J-10 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 1... J-11 Figure J-11 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 2... J-12 Figure J-12 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 3... J-13 lxv

70 Figure J-13 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 4... J-14 Figure J-14 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 5... J-15 Figure J-15 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 6... J-16 Figure J-16 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 7... J-17 Figure J-17 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 8... J-18 Figure J-18 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights... J-19 Figure J-19 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 1... J-20 Figure J-20 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 2... J-21 Figure J-21 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 3... J-22 Figure J-22 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 4... J-23 Figure J-23 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 5... J-24 Figure J-24 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 6... J-25 Figure J-25 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 7... J-26 Figure J-26 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 8... J-27 Figure J-27 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights... J-28 lxvi

71 Figure J-28 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 1... J-29 Figure J-29 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 2... J-30 Figure J-30 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 3... J-31 Figure J-31 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 4... J-32 Figure J-32 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 5... J-33 Figure J-33 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 6... J-34 Figure J-34 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 7... J-35 Figure J-35 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 8... J-36 Figure J-36 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights... J-37 Figure J-37 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 1... J-38 Figure J-38 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 2... J-39 Figure J-39 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 3... J-40 Figure J-40 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 4... J-41 Figure J-41 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 5... J-42 Figure J-42 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 6... J-43 lxvii

72 Figure J-43 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 7... J-44 Figure J-44 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 8... J-45 Figure J-45 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights... J-46 Figure J-46 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 1... J-47 Figure J-47 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 2... J-48 Figure J-48 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 3... J-49 Figure J-49 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 4... J-50 Figure J-50 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 5... J-51 Figure J-51 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 6... J-52 Figure J-52 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 7... J-53 Figure J-53 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 8... J-54 Figure J-54 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights... J-55 Figure J-55 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 1... J-56 Figure J-56 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 2... J-57 Figure J-57 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 3... J-58 lxviii

73 Figure J-58 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 4... J-59 Figure J-59 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 5... J-60 Figure J-60 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 6... J-61 Figure J-61 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 7... J-62 Figure J-62 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 8... J-63 Figure J-63 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case A magnitude weights... J-64 Figure J-64 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 1... J-65 Figure J-65 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 2... J-66 Figure J-66 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 3... J-67 Figure J-67 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 4... J-68 Figure J-68 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 5... J-69 Figure J-69 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 6... J-70 Figure J-70 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 7... J-71 Figure J-71 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 8... J-72 Figure J-72 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case B magnitude weights... J-73 lxix

74 Figure J-73 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 1... J-74 Figure J-74 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 2... J-75 Figure J-75 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 3... J-76 Figure J-76 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 4... J-77 Figure J-77 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 5... J-78 Figure J-78 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 6... J-79 Figure J-79 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 7... J-80 Figure J-80 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 8... J-81 Figure J-81 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case E magnitude weights... J-82 Figure J-82 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 1... J-83 Figure J-83 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 2... J-84 Figure J-84 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 3... J-85 Figure J-85 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 4... J-86 Figure J-86 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 5... J-87 Figure J-87 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 6... J-88 lxx

75 Figure J-88 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 7... J-89 Figure J-89 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 8... J-90 Figure J-90 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights... J-91 Figure J-91 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 1... J-92 Figure J-92 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 2... J-93 Figure J-93 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 3... J-94 Figure J-94 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 4... J-95 Figure J-95 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 5... J-96 Figure J-96 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 6... J-97 Figure J-97 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 7... J-98 Figure J-98 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 8... J-99 Figure J-99 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights... J-100 Figure J-100 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 1... J-101 Figure J-101 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 2... J-102 Figure J-102 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 3... J-103 lxxi

76 Figure J-103 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 4... J-104 Figure J-104 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 5... J-105 Figure J-105 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 6... J-106 Figure J-106 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 7... J-107 Figure J-107 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 8... J-108 Figure J-108 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights... J-109 Figure J-109 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 1... J-110 Figure J-110 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 2... J-111 Figure J-111 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 3... J-112 Figure J-112 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 4... J-113 Figure J-113 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 5... J-114 Figure J-114 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 6... J-115 Figure J-115 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 7... J-116 Figure J-116 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 8... J-117 Figure J-117 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights... J-118 lxxii

77 Figure J-118 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 1... J-119 Figure J-119 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 2... J-120 Figure J-120 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 3... J-121 Figure J-121 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 4... J-122 Figure J-122 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 5... J-123 Figure J-123 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 6... J-124 Figure J-124 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 7... J-125 Figure J-125 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 8... J-126 Figure J-126 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights... J-127 Figure J-127 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 1... J-128 Figure J-128 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 2... J-129 Figure J-129 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 3... J-130 Figure J-130 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 4... J-131 Figure J-131 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 5... J-132 Figure J-132 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 6... J-133 lxxiii

78 Figure J-133 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 7... J-134 Figure J-134 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 8... J-135 Figure J-135 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights... J-136 Figure J-136 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 1... J-137 Figure J-137 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 2... J-138 Figure J-138 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 3... J-139 Figure J-139 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 4... J-140 Figure J-140 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 5... J-141 Figure J-141 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 6... J-142 Figure J-142 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 7... J-143 Figure J-143 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 8... J-144 Figure J-144 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights... J-145 Figure J-145 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 1... J-146 Figure J-146 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 2... J-147 Figure J-147 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 3... J-148 Figure J-148 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 4... J-149 Figure J-149 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 5... J-150 Figure J-150 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 6... J-151 Figure J-151 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 7... J-152 Figure J-152 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 8... J-153 lxxiv

79 Figure J-153 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights... J-154 Figure J-154 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 1... J-155 Figure J-155 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 2... J-156 Figure J-156 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 3... J-157 Figure J-157 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 4... J-158 Figure J-158 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 5... J-159 Figure J-159 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 6... J-160 Figure J-160 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 7... J-161 Figure J-161 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 8... J-162 Figure J-162 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights... J-163 Figure J-163 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 1... J-164 Figure J-164 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 2... J-165 Figure J-165 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 3... J-166 Figure J-166 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 4... J-167 Figure J-167 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 5... J-168 Figure J-168 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 6... J-169 Figure J-169 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 7... J-170 Figure J-170 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights: Realization 8... J-171 Figure J-171 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case A magnitude weights... J-172 Figure J-172 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 1... J-173 lxxv

80 Figure J-173 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 2... J-174 Figure J-174 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 3... J-175 Figure J-175 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 4... J-176 Figure J-176 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 5... J-177 Figure J-177 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 6... J-178 Figure J-178 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 7... J-179 Figure J-179 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights: Realization 8... J-180 Figure J-180 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case B magnitude weights... J-181 Figure J-181 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 1... J-182 Figure J-182 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 2... J-183 Figure J-183 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 3... J-184 Figure J-184 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 4... J-185 Figure J-185 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 5... J-186 Figure J-186 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 6... J-187 Figure J-187 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 7... J-188 Figure J-188 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights: Realization 8... J-189 Figure J-189 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case E magnitude weights... J-190 Figure K-1 Comparison of relationships between number of reporting stations and moment magnitude presented in Johnston et al. (1994) and Johnston (1996b)... K-41 Figure K-2 Comparison of relationships between isoseismal areas and moment magnitude presented in Johnston et al. (1994) and Johnston (1996b)... K-42 lxxvi

81 LIST OF TABLES Table Technical Meetings Conducted as Part of the CEUS SSC Project Table Contributors to the CEUS SSC Project Table Summary of Earthquakes Added USGS Earthquake Catalog by Time Period Table Summary of Earthquakes Added USGS Earthquake Catalog by Source Table Conversion Relationships Used Develop Uniform Moment Magnitudes E[M] Table Comparison of CEUS SSC Catalog Declustering Results Obtained Using the EPRI (1988) Approach with the Gardner Knopoff (1974) Approach Table Probability of Detection and Equivalent Periods of Completeness for the CEUS for Magnitude Weighting Case A Table Probability of Detection and Equivalent Periods of Completeness for the CEUS for Magnitude Weighting Case B Table Probability of Detection and Equivalent Periods of Completeness for the CEUS for Magnitude Weighting Case E Table Sample table indicating particular types of data that can be considered in the identification and characterization of seismic sources (Table 2, ANSI/ANS ) Table Sample table identifying the types of data that can be considered for characterizing different types of seismic sources, and an evaluation of the relative usefulness or credibility of the various data types (Budnitz et al., 1997) Table Table showing the generic (not source-specific) evaluation of data to address indicators of a unique seismic source. The table indicates the TI Team s assessment of the types of data that can be used to address the indicators and their relative usefulness Table Example of Data Evaluation Table for the Illinois Basin Extended Basement Zone (IBEB) Table Example of Data Summary Table for the Extended Continental Crust Atlantic Margin (ECC-AM) and Atlantic Highly Extended Crust (AHEX) Zones Table Criteria Used to Define the Seismotectonic Zones and Mmax Zones Table RLME Sources Table Seismotectonic Zones Table Mesozoic-and-Younger Extended Superdomains (MESE) Table Older Extended and Non-Extended Superdomains (NMESE) Table Composite SCR Superdomains (COMP) Table Results of Analyses of Updated SCR Superdomains lxxvii

82 Table Source Zones, P(m u > 8¼) Values, and Weights on Kijko (2004) K-S-B Estimates Table Mmax Distributions for the Two Example Seismic Sources Table Alternative Cases Considered for the Magnitude-Dependent Weights Table Miller and Rice (1983) Discrete 5-Point Approximation to a Continuous Probability Distribution and the Modified Form Used in This Study Table Assessment of Default Characteristics of Future Earthquakes in the CEUS Table Characteristics of Future Earthquakes for Individual Seismic Sources Table Estimates of D 90 for Individual Seismic Source Zones Table Summary of Data Used to Assess RLME Recurrence Frequencies Table Charlevoix RLME Recurrence Frequency Table Summary of Interpreted Charleston Earthquake Ages and Sizes from Contemporary Ages Only Scenario Table Summary of Interpreted Charleston Earthquake Ages and Sizes from All Ages Scenario Table Charleston Liquefaction Feature Ages Used to Assess Ages of Prehistoric Earthquakes Table Charleston RLME Recurrence Frequency for Poisson Model Table Charleston RLME Recurrence Frequency for Renewal Model Table Range of Cheraw Fault Estimated Magnitudes (M) Table Cheraw RLME In-Cluster Recurrence Frequency Table Cheraw RLME In-Cluster Slip Rates Table Cheraw RLME Out-of-Cluster Recurrence Frequency Table Cheraw RLME Out-of-Cluster Slip Rates Table Range of Estimated Meers Fault Earthquake Magnitudes (M) Table Meers RLME In-Cluster Recurrence Frequency Table Meers RLME Out-of-Cluster Recurrence Frequency Table Preferred Ages for Paleoearthquakes in the New Madrid Region Table Magnitude Comparisons for New Madrid Earthquake Sequence Table Liquefaction Constraints on Age of AD 1450 NMFS RLME Table Liquefaction Constraints on Age of AD 900 NMFS RLME Table NMFS In-Cluster RLME Recurrence Frequency Poisson Model Table NMFS In-Cluster RLME Recurrence Frequency Renewal Model Table NMFS Out-of-Cluster RLME Recurrence Frequency Poisson Model Table Range of ERM-S Estimated Magnitudes (M) Table Range of ERM-N Estimated Magnitudes (M) Table ERM-S RLME Recurrence Frequency Table ERM-N RLME Recurrence Frequency Table Marianna RLME Recurrence Frequency lxxviii

83 Table Range of Commerce Fault Zone RLME Estimated Magnitudes (M) Table Commerce Fault Zone RLME Recurrence Frequency Table Liquefaction Evidence for Prehistoric Earthquakes in the Southern Illinois Basin Table Wabash RLME Recurrence Frequency Table Alternative Mmax Zonation Models Table Maximum Magnitude Distributions for Mmax Distributed Seismicity Sources Table Data Summary and Data Evaluation Tables for Seismotectonic Zones in Appendices C and D Table Maximum Magnitude Distributions for Seismotectonic Distributed Seismicity Sources Table Description of Seven Test Sites Table Mean and Select Fractiles for Rock Hazard at Central Illinois: Digital Data for Figures 8.2-1a through 8.2-1c Table Mean and Select Fractiles for Rock Hazard at Chattanooga: Digital Data for Figures 8.2-2a through 8.2-2c Table Mean and Select Fractiles for Rock Hazard at Houston: Digital Data for Figures 8.2-3a through 8.2-3c Table Mean and Select Fractiles for Rock Hazard at Jackson: Digital Data for Figures 8.2-4a through 8.2-4c Table Mean and Select Fractiles for Rock Hazard at Manchester: Digital Data for Figures 8.2-5a through 8.2-5c Table Mean and Select Fractiles for Rock Hazard at Savannah: Digital Data for Figures 8.2-6a through 8.2-6c Table Mean and Select Fractiles for Rock Hazard at Topeka: Digital Data for Figures 8.2-7a through 8.2-7c Table Available Information for Determining the Precision of Mean Hazard Table Summary of an Example Logic Tree Representing Uncertainties for the Charleston Seismic Zone Table Basic Weights Given in EPRI (2004) for Ground Motion Equations Table Ground Motion Equations and Weights Used in USGS 2008 National Hazard Map for CEUS Table Minimum COV MH Values Observed in Seismic Hazard Table A-1 CEUS SSC GIS Database... A-7 Table B-1 Earthquake Catalog... B-6 Table B-2 Moment Magnitude Data... B-312 Table B-3 Approximate Moment Magnitude Data... B-324 Table C-5.4 Data Evaluation Future Earthquake Characteristics... C-3 Table C Data Evaluation Charlevoix RLME... C-9 Table C Data Evaluation Charleston RLME... C-14 Table C Data Evaluation Cheraw Fault RLME... C-30 lxxix

84 Table C Data Evaluation Oklahoma Aulacogen RLME... C-36 Table C Data Evaluation Reelfoot Rift New Madrid Fault System RLMEs... C-42 Table C Data Evaluation Reelfoot Rift Eastern Margin Fault(s) RLMEs... C-51 Table C Data Evaluation Reelfoot Rift Marianna RLME... C-62 Table C Data Evaluation Reelfoot Rift Commerce Fault Zone RLME... C-67 Table C Data Evaluation Wabash Valley RLME... C-75 Table C Data Evaluation St. Lawrence Rift Zone... C-83 Table C Data Evaluation Great Meteor Hotspot Zone... C-92 Table C Data Evaluation Northern Appalachian Zone... C-99 Table C Data Evaluation Paleozoic Extended Crust Zone... C-105 Table C Data Evaluation Illinois Basin-Extended Basement Zone... C-112 Table C Data Evaluation Reelfoot Rift Zone... C-124 Tables C-7.3.7/7.3.8 Data Evaluation Extended Continental Crust Atlantic... C-131 Tables C-7.3.9/ Data Evaluation Extended Continental Crust Gulf Coast... C-138 Table C Data Evaluation Midcontinent-Craton Zone... C-146 Table D-5.4 Data Summary Future Earthquake Characteristics... D-3 Table D Data Summary Charlevoix RLME... D-10 Table D Data Summary Charleston RLME... D-17 Table D Data Summary Cheraw Fault RLME... D-35 Table D Data Summary Oklahoma Aulacogen RLME... D-38 Table D Data Summary Reelfoot Rift New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ) Region... D-44 Table D Data Summary Wabash Valley RLME... D-92 Table D Data Summary St. Lawrence Rift Zone (SLR)... D-121 Table D Data Summary Great Meteor Hotspot Zone (GMH)... D-141 Table D Data Summary Northern Appalachian Zone (NAP)... D-151 Table D Data Summary Paleozoic Extended Crust Zone... D-163 Table D Data Summary Extended Continental Crust Zone Atlantic Margin (ECC- AM)... D-191 Table D Data Summary Extended Continental Crust Zone Gulf Coast (ECC-GC)... D-225 Table D Data Summary Midcontinent-Craton Zone (MidC)... D-240 Table E Summary of Information on Liquefaction Features in Regional Data Sets... E-5 Table E Summary of Type and Prevalence of Paleoliquefaction Features... E-7 Table E Summary of Dating Techniques Used in Paleoliquefaction Studies... E-30 Table E-2.2. Uncertainties Related to Interpretation of Paleoearthquake Parameters... E-36 Table 1: Key Questions and Topics That Workshop 2 Presenters Were Asked to Address...F-35 Table H-3-1 Weighted Alternative Seismogenic Crustal Thickness Values for Mmax Zones... H-20 Table H-3-2 Aleatory Distributions for Characterization of Future Earthquake Ruptures for Mmax Zones... H-20 lxxx

85 Table H-3-3 Maximum Magnitude Distributions for Mmax Distributed Seismicity Sources... H-20 Table H-4-1 Seismotectonic Source Zones... H-21 Table H-4-2 Weighted Alternative Seismogenic Crustal Thickness Values for Seismotectonic Zones... H-21 Table H-4-3 Aleatory Distributions for Characterization of Future Earthquake Ruptures for Seismotectonic Zones... H-22 Table H-4-4 Maximum Magnitude Distributions for Seismotectonic Distributed Seismicity Sources... H-24 Table H Charlevoix RLME Magnitude Distribution... H-25 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charlevoix RLME Events Data Set 1: 1870 and H-25 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charlevoix RLME Events Data Set 2: 3 Earthquakes in 6 7 kyr BP... H-25 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charlevoix RLME Events Data Set 3: 4 Earthquakes in kyr BP... H-26 Table H Charleston RLME Magnitude Distribution... H-26 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charleston RLME Events Poisson Model, 2,000- Year Time Period Earthquakes 1886, A, B, and C... H-26 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charleston RLME Events Poisson Model, 5,500- Year Time Period Earthquakes 1886, A, B, and C... H-27 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charleston RLME Events Poisson Model, 5,500- Year Time Period Earthquakes 1886, A, B, C, and D... H-27 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charleston RLME Events Poisson Model, 5,500- Year Time Period Earthquakes 1886, A, B, C, and E... H-27 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charleston RLME Events Poisson Model, 5,500- Year Time Period Earthquakes 1886, A, B, C, D, and E... H-28 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charleston RLME Events BPT Renewal Model, = 0.3, 2,000-Year Time Period Earthquakes 1886, A, B, and C... H-28 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charleston RLME Events BPT Renewal Model, = 0.5, 2,000-Year Time Period Earthquakes 1886, A, B, and C... H-28 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charleston RLME Events BPT Renewal Model, = 0.7, 2,000-Year Time Period Earthquakes 1886, A, B, and C... H-29 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charleston RLME Events BPT Renewal Model, = 0.3, 5,500-Year Time Period Earthquakes 1886, A, B, and C... H-29 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charleston RLME Events BPT Renewal Model, = 0.5, 5,500-Year Time Period Earthquakes 1886, A, B, and C... H-29 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charleston RLME Events BPT Renewal Model, = 0.7, 5,500-Year Time Period Earthquakes 1886, A, B, and C... H-30 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charleston RLME Events BPT Renewal Model, = 0.3, 5,500-Year Time Period Earthquakes 1886, A, B, C, and D... H-30 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charleston RLME Events BPT Renewal Model, = 0.5, 5,500-Year Time Period Earthquakes 1886, A, B, C, and D... H-30 lxxxi

86 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charleston RLME Events BPT Renewal Model, = 0.7, 5,500-Year Time Period Earthquakes 1886, A, B, C, and D... H-31 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charleston RLME Events BPT Renewal Model, = 0.3, 5,500-Year Time Period Earthquakes 1886, A, B, C, and E... H-31 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charleston RLME Events BPT Renewal Model, = 0.5, 5,500-Year Time Period Earthquakes 1886, A, B, C, and E... H-31 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charleston RLME Events BPT Renewal Model, = 0.7, 5,500-Year Time Period Earthquakes 1886, A, B, C, and E... H-32 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charleston RLME Events BPT Renewal Model, = 0.3, 5,500-Year Time Period Earthquakes 1886, A, B, C, D, and E... H-32 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charleston RLME Events BPT Renewal Model, = 0.5, 5,500-Year Time Period Earthquakes 1886, A, B, C, D, and E... H-32 Table H Annual Frequencies for Charleston RLME Events BPT Renewal Model, = 0.7, 5,500-Year Time Period Earthquakes 1886, A, B, C, D, and E... H-33 Table H Cheraw RLME Magnitude Distribution... H-33 Table H Annual Frequencies for Cheraw RLME Events In-Cluster Case, Data Set: 2 Earthquakes in kyr... H-33 Table H Annual Frequencies for Cheraw RLME Events In-Cluster Case, Data Set: 3 Earthquakes in kyr... H-34 Table H Slip Rates for Cheraw Fault In-Cluster Case, Data Set: m in kyr... H-34 Table H Annual Frequencies for Cheraw RLME Events Out-of-Cluster Case, Time Between Clusters... H-34 Table H Slip Rates for Cheraw Fault Out-of-Cluster Case, Data Set: 7 8 m in myr... H-35 Table H Meers RLME Magnitude Distribution... H-35 Table H Annual Frequencies for Meers RLME Events In-Cluster Case... H-35 Table H Annual Frequencies for Meers RLME Events Out-of-Cluster Case... H-36 Table H NMFS RLME Magnitude Distribution... H-36 Table H Annual Frequencies for NMFS RLME Events In-Cluster Case, Poisson Model... H-36 Table H Annual Frequencies for NMFS RLME Events In-Cluster Case, BPT Model, = H-37 Table H Annual Frequencies for NMFS RLME Events In-Cluster Case, BPT Model, = H-37 Table H Annual Frequencies for NMFS RLME Events In-Cluster Case, BPT Model, = H-37 Table H Annual Frequencies for NMFS RLME Events Out-of-Cluster Case, Poisson Model... H-38 Table H ERM-S RLME Magnitude Distribution... H-38 Table H ERM-N RLME Magnitude Distribution... H-38 Table H Annual Frequencies for ERM-S RLME Events Data Set: 2 Earthquakes in kyr... H-39 lxxxii

87 Table H Annual Frequencies for ERM-S RLME Events Data Set: 3 Earthquakes in kyr... H-39 Table H Annual Frequencies for ERM-S RLME Events Data Set: 4 Earthquakes in kyr... H-39 Table H Annual Frequencies for ERM-N RLME Events Data Set: 1 Earthquake in kyr... H-40 Table H Annual Frequencies for ERM-N RLME Events Data Set: 2 Earthquakes in kyr... H-40 Table H Marianna RLME Magnitude Distribution... H-40 Table H Annual Frequencies for Marianna RLME Events Data Set: 3 Earthquakes in kyr... H-41 Table H Annual Frequencies for Marianna RLME Events Data Set: 4 Earthquakes in kyr... H-41 Table H Commerce RLME Magnitude Distribution... H-41 Table H Annual Frequencies for Commerce RLME Events Data Set: 2 Earthquakes in kyr... H-42 Table H Annual Frequencies for Commerce RLME Events Data Set: 3 Earthquakes in kyr... H-42 Table H Wabash RLME Magnitude Distribution... H-42 Table H Annual Frequencies for Wabash RLME Events Data Set: 2 Earthquakes in kyr... H-43 PPRP Comment Response Table...(Appendix I) Table K-1 SCR Earthquake Catalog... K-5 Table K-2 SCR Domains Updated from Johnston et al. (1994)... K-34 lxxxiii

88

89 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities (CEUS SSC) Project was conducted over the period from April 2008 to December 2011 to provide a regional seismic source model for use in probabilistic seismic hazard analyses (PSHAs) for nuclear facilities. The study replaces previous regional seismic source models conducted for this purpose, including the Electric Power Research Institute Seismicity Owners Group (EPRI-SOG) model (EPRI, 1988, 1989) and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory model (Bernreuter et al., 1989). Unlike the previous studies, the CEUS SSC Project was sponsored by multiple stakeholders namely, the EPRI Advanced Nuclear Technology Program, the Office of Nuclear Energy and the Office of the Chief of Nuclear Safety of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The study was conducted using Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) Study Level 3 methodology to provide high levels of confidence that the data, models, and methods of the larger technical community have been considered and the center, body, and range of technically defensible interpretations have been included. The regional seismic source characterization (SSC) model defined by this study can be used for site-specific PSHAs, provided that appropriate site-specific assessments are conducted as required by current regulations and regulatory guidance for the nuclear facility of interest. This model has been designed to be compatible with current and anticipated ground-motion characterization (GMC) models. The current recommended ground-motion models for use at nuclear facilities are those developed by EPRI (2004, 2006a, 2006b). The ongoing Next Generation Attenuation East (NGA-East) project being supported by the NRC, DOE, and EPRI will provide ground-motion models that are appropriate for use with the CEUS SSC model. The methodology for a SSHAC Level 3 project as applied to the CEUS SSC Project is explained in the SSHAC report (Budnitz et al., 1997), which was written to discuss the evolution of expert assessment methodologies conducted during the previous three decades for purposes of probabilistic risk analyses. The methodological guidance provided in the SSHAC report was intended to build on the lessons learned from those previous studies and, specifically, to arrive at processes that would make it possible to avoid the issues encountered by the previous studies (NRC, 2011). The SSHAC assessment process, which differs only slightly for Level 3 and 4 studies, is a technical process accepted in the NRC s seismic regulatory guidance (Regulatory Guide 1.208) for ensuring that uncertainties in data and scientific knowledge have been properly represented in seismic design ground motions consistent with the requirements of the seismic regulation 10 CFR Part ( Geologic and Seismic Siting Criteria ). Therefore, the goal of the SSHAC assessment process is the proper and complete representation of knowledge and uncertainties in the SSC and GMC inputs to the PSHA (or similar hazard analysis). As discussed extensively in lxxxv

90 Executive Summary the SSHAC report (Budnitz et al., 1997) and affirmed in NRC (2011), a SSHAC assessment process consists of two important sequential activities, evaluation and integration. For a Level 3 assessment, these activities are conducted by the Technical Integration (TI) Team under the leadership of the TI Lead. As described in NRC (2011), The fundamental goal of a SSHAC process is to carry out properly and document completely the activities of evaluation and integration, defined as: Evaluation: The consideration of the complete set of data, models, and methods proposed by the larger technical community that are relevant to the hazard analysis. Integration: Representing the center, body, and range of technically defensible interpretations in light of the evaluation process (i.e., informed by the assessment of existing data, models, and methods). Each of the assessment and model-building activities of the CEUS SSC Project is associated with the evaluation and integration steps in a SSHAC Level 3 process. Consistent with the requirements of a SSHAC process, the specific roles and responsibilities of all project participants were defined in the Project Plan, and adherence to those roles was the responsibility of the TI Lead and the Project Manager. The technical assessments are made by the TI Team, who carry the principal responsibility of evaluation and integration, under the technical leadership of the TI Lead. The Database Manager and other technical support individuals assist in the development of work products. Resource and proponent experts participate by presenting their data, models, and interpretations at workshops and through technical interchange with the TI Team throughout the project. The Participatory Peer Review Panel (PPRP) is responsible for a continuous review of both the SSHAC process being followed and the technical assessments being made. The project management structure is headed by the Project Manager, who serves as the liason with the sponsors and the PPRP and manages the activities of all participants. The SSHAC Level 3 assessment process and implementation is discussed in depth in Chapter 2 of this report. Each of the methodology steps in the SSHAC guidelines (Budnitz, 1997) was addressed adequately during the CEUS SSC Project. Furthermore, the project developed a number of enhancements to the process steps for conducting a SSHAC Study Level 3 project. For example, the SSHAC guidelines call for process steps that include developing a preliminary assessment model, calculating hazard using that model in order to identify the key issues, and finalizing the model in light of the feedback provided from the hazard calculations and sensitivity analyses. Because of the regional nature of the project and the multitude of assessments required, four rounds of model-building and three rounds of feedback were conducted. These activities ensured that all significant issues and uncertainties were identified and that the appropriate effort was devoted to the issues of most significance to the hazard results. A comparison of the activities conducted during the CEUS SSC Project with those recommended in the SSHAC guidelines themselves (Section 2.6) led to the conclusion that the current standards of practice have been met for a SSHAC Study Level 3 process both those that are documented in the SSHAC report and those that resulted from precedents set by projects conducted since the SSHAC report was issued. lxxxvi

91 Executive Summary The catalog of past earthquakes that have occurred in a region is an important source of information for the quantification of future seismic hazards. This is particularly true in stable continental regions (SCRs) such as the CEUS where the causative mechanisms and structures for the occurrence of damaging earthquakes are generally poorly understood, and the rates of crustal deformation are low such that surface and near-surface indications of stresses in the crust and the buildup and release of crustal strains are difficult to quantify. Because the earthquake catalog is used in the characterization of the occurrence of future earthquakes in the CEUS, developing an updated earthquake catalog for the study region was an important focus of the CEUS SSC Project. The specific goals for earthquake catalog development and methods used to attain those goals are given in Chapter 3. The earthquake catalog development consists of four main steps: catalog compilation, assessment of a uniform size measure to apply to each earthquake, identification of dependent earthquakes (catalog declustering), and assessment of the completeness of the catalog as a function of location, time, and earthquake size. An important part of the catalog development process was review by seismologists with extensive knowledge and experience in catalog compilation. The result is an earthquake catalog covering the entire study region for the period from 1568 through the end of Earthquake size is defined in terms of the moment magnitude scale (Hanks and Kanamori, 1979), consistent with the magnitude scale used in modern ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) for CEUS earthquakes. A significant contribution of the CEUS SSC Project is the work conducted to develop an updated and consistent set of conversion relationships between various earthquake size measures (instrumental magnitudes and intensity) and moment magnitude. The conceptual SSC framework described in Chapter 4 was developed early in the CEUS SSC Project in order to provide a consistent approach and philosophy to SSC by the TI Team. This framework provides the basic underpinnings of the SSC model developed for the project, and it led to the basic structure and elements of the master logic tree developed for the SSC model. In considering the purpose of the CEUS SSC Project, the TI Team identified three attributes that are needed for a conceptual SSC framework: 1. A systematic, documented approach to treating alternatives using logic trees, including alternative conceptual models for future spatial distributions of seismicity (e.g., stationarity); alternative methods for expressing the future temporal distribution of seismicity (e.g., renewal models, Poisson models); and alternative data sets for characterizing seismic sources (e.g., paleoseismic data, historical seismicity data). 2. A systematic approach to identifying applicable data for the source characterization, evaluating the usefulness of the data, and documenting the consideration given to the data by the TI Team. 3. A methodology for identifying seismic sources based on defensible criteria for defining a seismic source, incorporating the lessons learned in SSC over the past two decades, and identifying the range of approaches and models that can be shown to be significant to hazard. Each of these needs was addressed by the methodology used in the project. For example, the need for a systematic approach to identifying and evaluating the data and information that underlie the source characterization assessments was met by the development of Data Summary lxxxvii

92 Executive Summary and Data Evaluation tables. These tables were developed for each seismic source to document the information available at the time of the CEUS SSC assessments (the Data Summary tables) and the way those data were used in the characterization process (the Data Evaluation tables). Given the evolution of approaches to identifying seismic sources, it is appropriate to provide a set of criteria and the logic for their application in the CEUS SSC Project. In the project, unique seismic sources are defined to account for distinct differences in the following criteria: Earthquake recurrence rate Maximum earthquake magnitude (Mmax) Expected future earthquake characteristics (e.g., style of faulting, rupture orientation, depth distribution) Probability of activity of tectonic feature(s) Rather than treat these criteria as operating simultaneously or without priority, the CEUS SSC methodology works through them sequentially. Further, because each criterion adds complexity to the seismic source model, it is applied only if its application would lead to hazard-significant changes in the model. In this way, the model becomes only as complex as required by the available data and information. The CEUS SSC master logic tree is tied to the conceptual SSC framework that establishes the context for the entire seismic source model. The master logic tree depicts the alternative interpretations and conceptual models that represent the range of defensible interpretations, and the relative weights assessed for the alternatives. By laying out the alternatives initially, the subsequent detailed source evaluations were conducted within a framework that ensures consistency across the sources. Important elements of the master logic tree are as follows: Representation of the sources defined based on paleoseismic evidence for the occurrence of repeated large-magnitude earthquakes (RLMEs, defined as two or more earthquakes with M 6.5). Alternatives to the spatial distribution of earthquakes based on differences in maximum magnitudes (Mmax zones approach). Representation of uncertainty in spatial stationarity of observed seismicity based on smoothing of recurrence parameters. Representation of possible differences in future earthquake characteristics (e.g., style, seismogenic thickness, and orientation of ruptures), which lead to definition of seismotectonic zones in the logic tree (seismotectonic zones approach). The methodologies used by the project to make the SSC assessments are discussed in Chapter 5. The heart of any SSC model for PSHA is a description of the future spatial and temporal distribution of earthquakes. Continued analysis of the historical seismicity record and network monitoring by regional and local seismic networks has led to acceptance within the community that the general spatial patterns of observed small- to moderate-magnitude earthquakes provide predictive information about the spatial distribution of future large-magnitude earthquakes. The analyses leading to this conclusion have focused on whether the observed patterns of earthquakes lxxxviii

93 Executive Summary have varied through time; therefore, in effect, this is an assessment of uncertainty in whether small- to moderate-magnitude earthquakes have been relatively stationary through time. However, the available data on larger-magnitude earthquakes and their relationship to the spatial distribution of smaller earthquakes based on the observed record are quite limited. These data are not sufficient to allow confidence in the predictions generated by empirical spatial models. For this reason, geologic and geophysical data are needed to specify the locations of future earthquakes in addition to the observed patterns of seismicity. Detailed studies in the vicinity of large historical and instrumental earthquakes, and liquefaction phenomena associated with them, coupled with field and laboratory studies of geotechnical properties, are leading to a stronger technical basis for (1) placing limits on the locations of paleoearthquakes interpreted by the distribution of liquefaction phenomena and (2) defining their magnitudes. In some cases, the paleoseismic evidence for RLMEs is compelling, and the TI Team has included the RLME source in the SSC model. The locations of RLME sources notwithstanding, the spatial distribution of distributed seismicity sources has advanced in PSHA largely because of the assumption of spatial stationarity, and the SSC and hazard community uses approaches to smooth observed seismicity to provide a map that expresses the future spatial pattern of recurrence rates. The CEUS SSC model is based largely on the assumption, typical in PSHA studies, that spatial stationarity of seismicity is expected to persist for a period of approximately 50 years. Estimating Mmax in SCRs such as the CEUS is highly uncertain despite considerable interest and effort by the scientific community over the past few decades. Mmax is defined as the upper truncation point of the earthquake recurrence curve for individual seismic sources, and the typically broad distribution of Mmax for any given source reflects considerable epistemic uncertainty. Because the maximum magnitude for any given seismic source in the CEUS occurs rarely relative to the period of observation, the use of the historical seismicity record provides important but limited constraints on the magnitude of the maximum event. Because of the independent constraints on earthquake size, those limited constraints are used to estimate the magnitudes of RLME. For distributed seismicity source zones, two approaches are used to assess Mmax: the Bayesian approach and the Kijko approach. In the Bayesian procedure (Johnston et al., 1994), the prior distribution is based on the magnitudes of earthquakes that occurred worldwide within tectonically analogous regions. As part of the CEUS SSC Project, the TI Team pursued the refinement and application of the Bayesian Mmax approach becauses it provides a quantitative and repeatable process for assessing Mmax. The TI Team also explored alternative approaches for the assessment of Mmax that provide quantitative and repeatable results, and the team identified the approach developed by Kijko (2004) as a viable alternative. While the Kijko approach requires fewer assumptions than the Bayesian approach in that it uses only the observed earthquake statistics for the source, this is offset by the need for a relatively larger data sample in order to get meaningful results. Both approaches have the positive attribute that they are repeatable given the same data and they can be readily updated given new information. The relative weighting of the two approaches for inclusion in the logic tree is source-specific, a function of the numbers of earthquakes that are present within the source upon which to base the Mmax assessment: sources with fewer earthquakes are assessed to have little or no weight for the Kijko approach, while those with lxxxix

94 Executive Summary larger numbers of events are assessed higher weight for the Kijko approach. In all cases, because of the stability of the Bayesian approach and the preference for analogue approaches within the larger technical community, the Bayesian approach is assessed higher weight than the Kijko approach for all sources. A major effort was devoted to updating the global set of SCR earthquakes and to assessing statistically significant attributes of those earthquakes following the approach given in Johnston et al. (1994). In doing so, it was found that the only significant attribute defining the prior distribution is the presence or absence of Mesozoic-or-younger extension. The uncertainty in this assessment is reflected in the use of two alternative priors: one that takes into account the presence or absence of crustal domains having this attribute, and another that combines the entire CEUS region as a single SCR crustal domain with a single prior distribution. The use of the Bayesian and Kijko approach requires a definition of the largest observed magnitude within each source, and this assessment, along with the associated uncertainty, was incorporated into the Mmax distributions for each seismic source. Consideration of global analogues led to the assessment of an upper truncation to all Mmax distributions at 8¼ and a lower truncation at 5½. The broad distributions of Mmax for the various seismic source zones reflect the current epistemic uncertainty in the largest earthquake magnitude within each seismic source. The CEUS SSC model is based to a large extent on an assessment that spatial stationarity of seismicity will persist for time periods of interest for PSHA (approximately the next 50 years). Stationarity in this sense does not mean that future locations and magnitudes of earthquakes will occur exactly where they have occurred in the historical and instrumental record. Rather, the degree of spatial stationarity varies as a function of the type of data available to define the seismic source. RLME sources are based largely on paleoseismic evidence for repeated largemagnitude (M 6.5) earthquakes that occur in approximately the same location over periods of a few thousand years. On the other hand, patterns of seismicity away from the RLME sources within the Mmax and seismotectonic zones are defined from generally small- to moderatemagnitude earthquakes that have occurred during a relatively short (i.e., relative to the repeat times of large events) historical and instrumental record. Thus, the locations of future events are not as tightly constrained by the locations of past events as for RLME sources. The spatial smoothing operation is based on calculations of earthquake recurrence within one-quarter-degree or half-degree cells, with allowance for communication between the cells. Both a- and b- values are allowed to vary, but the degree of variation has been optimized such that b-values vary little across the study region. The approach used to smooth recurrence parameters is a refinement of the penalized-likelihood approach used in EPRI-SOG (EPRI, 1988), but it is designed to include a number of elements that make the formulation more robust, realistic, and flexible. These elements include the reformulation in terms of magnitude bins, the introduction of magnitude-dependent weights, catalog incompleteness, the effect of Mmax, spatial variation of parameters within the source zone, and the prior distributions of b. A key assessment made by the TI Team was the weight assigned to various magnitude bins in the assessment of smoothing parameters (Cases A, B, and E). This assessment represents the uncertainty in the interpretation that smaller magnitudes define the future locations and variation in recurrence parameters. Appropriately, the penalizedlikelihood approach results in higher spatial variation (less smoothing) when the low-magnitude xc

95 Executive Summary bins are included with high weight, and much less variation (higher smoothing) in the case where the lower-magnitude bins are given low or zero weight. The variation resulting from the final set of weights reflects the TI Team s assessment of the epistemic uncertainty in the spatial variation of recurrence parameters throughout the SSC model. The earthquake recurrence models for the RLME sources are somewhat simpler than those for distributed seismicity sources because the magnitude range for individual RLMEs is relatively narrow and their spatial distribution is limited geographically such that spatial variability is not a concern. This limits the problem to one of estimating the occurrence rate in time of a point process. The data that are used to assess the occurrence rates are derived primarily from paleoseismic studies and consist of two types: data that provide estimated ages of the paleoearthquakes such that the times between earthquakes can be estimated, and data that provide an estimate of the number of earthquakes that have occurred after the age of a particular stratigraphic horizon. These data are used to derive estimates of the RLME occurrence rates and their uncertainty. The estimation of the RLME occurrence rates is dependent on the probability model assumed for the temporal occurrence of these earthquakes. The standard model applied for most RLME sources in this study is the Poisson model, in which the probability of occurrence of an RLME in a specified time period is completely characterized by a single parameter, λ, the rate of RLME occurrence. The Poisson process is memoryless that is, the probability of occurrence in the next time interval is independent of when the most recent earthquake occurred, and the time between earthquakes is exponentially distributed with a standard deviation equal to the mean time between earthquakes. For two RLME sources (Reelfoot Rift New Madrid fault system and the Charleston source), the data are sufficient to suggest that the occurrence of RLMEs is more periodic in nature (the standard deviation is less than the mean time between earthquakes). For these RLME sources a simple renewal model can also be used to assess the probability of earthquake occurrence. In making an estimate of the probability of occurrence in the future, this model takes into account the time that has elapsed since the most recent RLME occurrence. The CEUS SSC model has been developed for use in future PSHAs. To make this future use possible, the SSC model must be combined with a GMC model. At present, the GMPEs in use for SCRs such as the CEUS include limited information regarding the characteristics of future earthquakes. In anticipation of the possible future development of GMPEs for the CEUS that will make it possible to incorporate similar types of information, a number of characteristics of future earthquakes in the CEUS are assessed. In addition to characteristics that might be important for ground motion assessments, there are also assessed characteristics that are potentially important to the modeling conducted for hazard analysis. Future earthquake characteristics assessed include the tectonic stress regime, sense of slip/style of faulting, strike and dip of ruptures, seismogenic crustal thickness, fault rupture area versus magnitude relationship, rupture length-to-width aspect ratio, and relationship of ruptures to source boundaries. Chapters 6 and 7 include discussions of the seismic sources that are defined by the Mmax zones and the seismotectonic zones branches of the master logic tree. Because of convincing evidence for their existence, both approaches include RLME sources. The rarity of repeated earthquakes relative to the period of historical observation means that evidence for repeated events comes xci

96 Executive Summary largely from the paleoseismic record. By identifying the RLMEs and including them in the SSC model, there is no implication that the set of RLMEs included is in fact the total set of RLMEs that might exist throughout the study region. This is because the presently available studies that locate and characterize the RLMEs have been concentrated in certain locations and are not systematic across the entire study region. Therefore, the evidence for the existence of the RLMEs is included in the model where it exists, but the remaining parts of the study region are also assessed to have significant earthquake potential, which is evidenced by the inclusion of moderate-to-large magnitudes in the Mmax distributions for every Mmax zone or seismotectonic zone. In Chapter 6, each RLME source is described in detail by the following factors: (1) evidence for temporal clustering, (2) geometry and style of faulting, (3) RLME magnitude, and (4) RLME recurrence. The descriptions document how the data have been evaluated and assessed to arrive at the various elements of the final SSC model, including all expressions of uncertainty. The Data Summary and Data Evaluation tables (Appendices C and D) complement the discussions in the text, documenting all the data that were considered in the course of data evaluation and integration process for each particular seismic source. Alternative models for the distributed seismicity zones that serve as background zones to the RLME sources are either Mmax zones or seismotectonic zones. The Mmax zones are described in Chapter 6 and are defined according to constraints on the prior distributions for the Bayesian approach to estimating Mmax. The seismotectonic zones are described in Chapter 7 and are identified based on potential differences in Mmax as well as future earthquake characteristics. Each seismotectonic zone in the CEUS SSC model is described according to the following attributes: (1) background information from various data sets; (2) bases for defining the seismotectonic zone; (3) basis for the source geometry; (4) basis for the zone Mmax (e.g., largest observed earthquake); and (5) future earthquake characteristics. Uncertainties in the seismotectonic zone characteristics are described and are represented in the logic trees developed for each source. For purposes of demonstrating the CEUS SSC model, seismic hazard calculations were conducted at seven demonstration sites throughout the study region, as described in Chapter 8. The site locations were selected to span a range of seismic source types and levels of seismicity. The results from the seismic hazard calculations are intended for scientific use to demonstrate the model, and they should not be used for engineering design. Mean hazard results are given for a range of spectral frequencies (PGA, 10 Hz, and 1 Hz) and for a range of site conditions. All calculations were made using the EPRI (2004, 2006) ground-motion models such that results could be compared to understand the SSC effects alone. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to provide insight into the dominant seismic sources and the important characteristics of the dominant seismic source at each site. The calculated mean hazard results are compared with the results using the SSC model from the 2008 U.S. Geological Survey national seismic hazard maps and the SSC model from the Combined Operating License applications for new nuclear power reactors. The hazard results using the CEUS SSC model given in Chapter 8 are reasonable and readily understood relative to the results from other studies, and sensitivities of the calculated hazard results can be readily explained by different aspects of the new model. The TI Team concludes that the SSC model provides reasonable and explainable calculated seismic hazard xcii

97 Executive Summary results, and the most important aspects of the SSC model to the calculated hazard (e.g., recurrence rates of RLME sources, recurrence parameters for distributed seismicity sources, Mmax) and their uncertainties have all been appropriately addressed. Presumably, the GMC model input to the PSHA calculations will be replaced in the future by the results of the ongoing NGA-East project. The calculated hazard at the demonstration sites in Chapter 8 comes from the regional CEUS SSC model and does not include any local refinements that might be necessary to account for local seismic sources. Depending on the regulatory guidance that is applicable for the facility of interest, additional site-specific studies may be required to provide local refinements to the model. To assist future users of the CEUS SSC model, Chapter 9 presents a discussion on the use of the model for PSHA. The basic elements of the model necessary for hazard calculations are given in the Hazard Input Document (HID). This document provides all necessary parameter values and probability distributions for use in a modern PSHA computer code. The HID does not, however, provide any justification for the values, since that information is given in the text of this report. Chapter 9 also describes several simplifications to seismic sources that can be made to increase efficiency in seismic hazard calculations. These simplifications are recommended on the basis of sensitivity studies of alternative hazard curves that represent a range of assumptions on a parameter s value. Sensitivities are presented using the test sites in this study. For applications of the seismic sources from this study, similar sensitivity studies should be conducted for the particular site of interest to confirm these results and to identify additional simplifications that might be appropriate. For the seismic sources presented, only those parameters that can be simplified are discussed and presented graphically. The sensitivity studies consisted of determining the sensitivity of hazard to logic tree branches for each node of the logic tree describing that source. The purpose was to determine which nodes of the logic tree could be collapsed to a single branch in order to achieve more efficient hazard calculations without compromising the accuracy of overall hazard results. Finally, this report provides a discussion of the level of precision that is associated with seismic hazard estimates in the CEUS. This discussion addresses how seismic hazard estimates might change if the analysis were repeated by independent experts having access to the same basic information (geology, tectonics, seismicity, ground-motion equations, site characterization). It also addresses how to determine whether the difference in hazard would be significant if this basic information were to change and that change resulted in a difference in the assessed seismic hazard. This analysis was performed knowing that future data and models will continue to be developed and that a mechanism for evaluating the significance of that information is needed. Based on the precision model evaluated, if an alternative assumption or parameter is used in a seismic hazard study, and it potentially changes the calculated hazard (annual frequency of exceedence) by less than 25 percent for ground motions with hazards in the range 10 4 to 10 6, that potential change is within the level of precision at which one can calculate seismic hazard. It should be noted, however, that a certain level of precision does not relieve users from performing site-specific studies to identify potential capable seismic sources within the site region and vicinity as well as to identify newer models and data. Also, this level of precision does not relieve users from fixing any errors that are discovered in the CEUS SSC model as it is xciii

98 Executive Summary implemented for siting critical facilities. In addition, NRC has not defined a set value for requiring or not requiring siting applicants to revise or update PSHAs. Included in the report are appendices that summarize key data sets and analyses: the earthquake catalog, the Data Summary and Data Evaluation tables, the paleoliquefaction database, the HID, and documentation important to the SSHAC process. These data and analyses will assist future users of the CEUS SSC model in the implementation of the model for purposes of PSHA. The entire report and database will be provided on a website after the Final Project Report is issued. The TI Team, Project Manager, and Sponsors determined the approach for quality assurance on the CEUS SSC Project in 2008, taking into account the SSHAC assessment process and national standards. The approach was documented in the CEUS SSC Project Plan dated June 2008 and discussed in more detail in the CEUS SSC Report (Appendix L). Beyond the assurance of quality arising from the external scientific review process, it is the collective, informed judgment of the TI Team (via the process of evaluation and integration) and the concurrence of the PPRP (via the participatory peer review process), as well as adherence to the national standard referred to in Appendix L, that ultimately lead to the assurance of quality in the process followed and in the products that resulted from the SSHAC hazard assessment framework. xciv

99 Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities Project: Introduction Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities Project Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis: Guidance on Uncertainty and the Use of Experts xix xcv

100 Project Plan: Conformity to the SSHAC Assessment Process evaluation integration Practical Implementation Guidelines for SSHAC Level 3 and 4 Hazard Studies xcvi

101 SSHAC Level 3 Assessment Process xcvii

102 Overall Project Organization Implementing the SSHAC Level 3 Assessment Process Evaluation xcviii

103 xcix

104 Integration PPRP Engagement each c

105 Project Report justification ci

106 cii